ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Disabled People (Elected Office)

Amber Rudd: What progress he has made on implementing his proposals for additional support for disabled people to achieve elected office.

Nicholas Clegg: We conducted a public consultation exercise, which ran from 16 February to 11 May, to seek views on a range of proposals designed to help to remove barriers faced by disabled people who are seeking elected office. We are currently analysing the responses, and intend to announce the strategy later this year.

Amber Rudd: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. In Hastings we have 32 councillors and in East Sussex 49, but not one of them is registered disabled. Can he give any advice to the leaders of my councils about what can be done to encourage more disabled people to get involved in local politics?

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend is right: the issue is applicable not just to this place, but to councils up and down the country. There are clearly barriers impeding the participation of people with disabilities in politics at all levels. I pay tribute to those who were involved in the Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation, which was started some years ago and identified this as a problem. In our access to elected office strategy, which we will announce, we will address how that might affect local councils as well as this place.

Mr Speaker: I call Lindsay Roy. He is not here, so I call Mr Andrew Love.

House of Lords

Andrew Love: What representations he has received on his plans for the future composition of the House of Lords.

Nicholas Clegg: I have received many representations expressing a wide variety of views—

Mr Speaker: Order. I believe the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking a grouping.

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, forgive me. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I would like to group questions 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12. A major issue—my omission to group the questions. That is how over-excited Members on the Opposition Benches get.

Charlie Elphicke: What recent representations he has received on his proposals for House of Lords reform.

Ben Bradshaw: What recent representations he has received on his proposals for reform of the House of Lords.

Alan Reid: What representations he has received on his plans for the future composition of the House of Lords.

Mel Stride: What recent representations he has received on his proposals for reform of the House of Lords.

Nicholas Clegg: The loudest voices inevitably belong to those who object the most to our proposals to make the House of Lords a more democratic Chamber but, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) said last week, a democratic Chamber was endorsed in the manifestos of all three of the largest parties in the House.

Andrew Love: Accountability is the essence of democracy. If the newly elected Members serve only one term for 15 years, how can that be called democratic?

Nicholas Clegg: As was discussed in the debate last week, the principle that one of the ways in which we distinguish between a reformed House of Lords and this Chamber is to introduce long non-renewable terms for the elected component in the other place was not invented by this Government. It was identified in a series of cross-party commissions over many years, but if the Joint Committee that is to be established thinks otherwise, that is exactly the kind of thing that we should debate in the months ahead.

Charlie Elphicke: Given that reform of the House of Lords was in all three major parties’ manifestos, is it not right that the House discuss the matter in Committee to work out the best way to implement it?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, and that is precisely why we look forward to a Joint Committee of both Houses being established through the usual channels, which will be able to get to grips with all the many questions, queries and objections that have been raised, so that we can as far as possible proceed on a cross-party basis on something that all parties are committed to seeing through.

Ben Bradshaw: From his conversations with the Prime Minister, how committed would the Deputy Prime Minister say the Prime Minister is to facing down his own Back Benchers and, if necessary, using the Parliament Act to get the reform through before the next election?

Nicholas Clegg: The Prime Minister gave an unambiguous answer to the question about the Parliament Act at Prime Minister’s questions last week. Not only was the commitment made by all three parties in their manifestos, but it is one that we entered unambiguously into the coalition agreement.

Alan Reid: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the reforms lead to an increase in the diversity of representation in the second Chamber? What steps will he take to ensure that that is the outcome of the reform?

Nicholas Clegg: One of the advantages of the system that we are introducing, as explained in the White Paper, is that it will permit political parties to take active steps, in so far as they wish to do so, to use elections to the other place to increase the diversity of representation in Westminster as a whole.

Mel Stride: Given the country’s firm rejection of AV in the recent referendum and the fact that the Government’s proposals include the possibility of some form of proportional representation for election of Members of this Parliament, will my right hon. Friend at least consider giving the people of this country a referendum on this important constitutional change?

Nicholas Clegg: The first point of which to remind my hon. Friend is that this was a manifesto commitment of all three parties. It is something that we as a country have been discussing for around 100 years or so, and we have introduced changed electoral systems to a number of Assemblies and Parliaments in the UK without referendums in the past.

David Winnick: It is understanable that there is tension and disagreement between the two coalition parties on this issue, and perhaps on other matters, but it was reported last week that during a recent meeting of Tory MPs one Member described the Liberal Democrats as “yellow” followed by a second word beginning with “b” then “a” and ending in “s”. Was the Deputy Prime Minister as shocked as I was by such behaviour?

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently say to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the House that I do not think he is responsible for what is said at meetings of Conservative Members of Parliament?

Andrew Turner: Should the right hon. Gentleman not drop this unpopular policy, which does not resonate with the majority of the public, and concentrate instead on finding a solution to the problem of the West Lothian question?

Nicholas Clegg: I am the first to acknowledge that, whether it is the West Lothian question or reform of the House of Lords, these are of course not matters that are raised by our constituents or on the doorsteps
	as we campaign at election time, but it does not mean that they are unimportant. We discuss many things in this House, from local government finance to world trade rules and all sorts of things that are not raised from day to day in our local communities, but that are none the less important. That is why we as a country have been struggling with this dilemma for more than 100 years and why all three parties have a manifesto commitment finally to make progress on reforming the other place.

Chris Bryant: The thing we find most bizarre about all this is that it is a priority for the Government at this time. The coalition agreement states that they will continue to appoint peers to the House of Lords
	“with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.”
	There are currently 792 unelected peers, after a year of the fastest level of appointment of new peers in the history of this country. To get to the objective set out in the agreement, the Deputy Prime Minister would have to appoint another 269. Are there another 97 Liberal Democrats to make peers in the House of Lords? Should there not be a moratorium?

Nicholas Clegg: Every time the hon. Gentleman asks a question, I find it more and more baffling why anyone should want to hack his phone and listen to his messages. It is quite extraordinary. The point he has just made illustrates why we need to reform the House of Lords.

Postal Voting

Graham Evans: What recent assessment he has made of arrangements for the provision of postal votes on demand.

Mark Harper: We have made no specific assessment of postal voting on demand, but we of course keep postal voting under review as we consider electoral administration in general.

Graham Evans: There have been widespread reports of shocking abuses of postal votes, especially in areas with high levels of multiple occupancy housing. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps the Government are taking to stamp out postal vote fraud and ensure honesty in our elections?

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He will know that we are introducing individual voter registration before the next general election, which will mean that everyone who wants to cast an absent vote, a postal vote in this case, will have to register individually and provide their identifiers to their registration officer in order to make the register more secure.

John Spellar: Conservative Members are very prone to making rash statements about alleged postal vote fraud, and not just in this House, but in another place. I have been in correspondence with the Minister and regularly asked the Leader of the House whether he can get Baroness Warsi to retract her statement
	that the Conservative party was robbed of a majority at the last election because of electoral fraud on behalf of the Labour party, particularly in the Asian community. Although a Cabinet member, she resolutely refuses to reply. Will the Minister do so now on her behalf?

Mark Harper: The right hon. Gentleman raised this matter at business questions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House drew it to my attention, as I am the Minister responsible for that policy area, and I replied as quickly as possible and gave the right hon. Gentleman a full answer. If he wishes to raise it with me again and ask me anything—[ Interruption. ] If Labour Members would actually listen, they might hear my answer. If he would like to ask me anything that I have not already answered in my letter, I would be delighted to write to him again.

Voting Facilities (Service Personnel)

Lilian Greenwood: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on steps to facilitate voting in elections by service personnel serving abroad.

Mark Harper: I have discussed that issue with the Minister responsible for defence personnel, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), and our officials in the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence are continuing to work on proposals to make it easier for our brave service personnel abroad to be able to participate in general elections. The hon. Lady will know some details about that from the written answers I gave her last week.

Lilian Greenwood: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I am disappointed by the lack of urgency with which his Government are addressing the matter. I was shocked to find that, as a result of the Government’s initiative in relation to voting on 5 May this year, only 40 of the thousands of service personnel deployed in Afghanistan voted in secret by post in the referendum, compared with the 217 who voted by post in the general election last year. At a public meeting in October 2008—

Mr Speaker: Order. We must have a one-second question; there is a lot to get through. Quick question, and we will carry on.

Lilian Greenwood: The Deputy Prime Minister assured my constituent Devina Worsley that he and the Armed Forces Minister would take action to address the issue. Is that another broken promise, or is he just not up to the job?

Mark Harper: I thought that we were going to get something good then, but that was clearly rehearsed. The hon. Lady will know from my detailed answer that the number of people who voted in the specific initiative that we set up, building on the one that the Labour party undertook for the general election, does not take into account all personnel in Afghanistan, some of whom will have registered separately. She will know also that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister
	has made it clear that the Government plan to lengthen the campaign period for general elections so that overseas voters, including our service personnel, have more opportunity to vote. That is a very clear promise—

Mr Speaker: We are immensely grateful to the Minister.

Bob Stewart: When the Minister talks to the Ministry of Defence about voting, will he try to ensure that not just the way our servicemen and women vote but the way they are required to register is as simple as possible?.

Mark Harper: I agree, and we are doing two things. We are going to make registering as a service voter more straightforward, and we are going to undertake some data-matching pilots with a number of local authorities, working with the Ministry of Defence, so that we can look at improving the way service personnel are registered so they all have the chance to register and vote in elections.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Nia Griffith: What discussions he has had with the Electoral Commission on the conduct of elections for police and crime commissioners.

Nicholas Clegg: I have discussed the conduct of the elections for police and crime commissioners with the chair of the Electoral Commission. Cabinet Office officials have also been working closely with their counterparts at the Electoral Commission as part of work with the Home Department on the policy and legislation that will be required to allow for the conduct and regulation of those elections.

Nia Griffith: Many of my constituents would far rather see the estimated £100 million cost of running such elections for police commissioners spent on keeping police on the beat, but will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us the views of the Electoral Commission on limits to the campaigning expenses for elected police commissioner candidates?

Nicholas Clegg: The intention will of course be to bring the legislation on elections for police and crime commissioners into line with that on other elections. We are absolutely determined to deliver the commitment in the coalition agreement to hold the elections so that we have greater accountability in policing. Policing matters to every single family and community in this country, and that is why we should make the police more accountable to the people they serve.

Gregory Campbell: Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that he will do what he can to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened in Northern Ireland earlier this month, when we had three different polls on one day, an inordinate delay in declaring the AV referendum result and significant delays in the other polls as well?

Nicholas Clegg: I am obviously very keen to hear from the hon. Gentleman any specific reservations he has about how the combination of polls operated, but the provisional feedback seems to be that, despite some very dire warnings about the combination of polls not only in Northern Ireland but elsewhere, on the whole it was conducted very successfully indeed.

Sadiq Khan: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that plans for police commissioners are a pretty major change in the way we do things, with new electoral boundaries and a new post. I will not go into the substance of the disagreement between the two sides about police commissioners, but on a procedural point the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned his discussions with the Electoral Commission. How soon in advance of the elections, which are now less than a year away, will we see the rules on spending limits, on fundraising transparency and on how the elections are held? He will be aware that all parties need to have time to select candidates throughout the country.

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. Gentleman —unusually—makes a fair point. We do need to get these rules into place in good time, and we will be working with the Electoral Commission at all levels to make sure that the rules are available to everybody who wants to participate in these elections in good time so that they can be held in the proper way.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Peter Bone: What representations he has received on the application of the Salisbury convention to legislative proposals relating to political and constitutional reform.

Nicholas Clegg: I have received no representations on this subject.

Peter Bone: The Deputy Prime Minister is well known for his love of Parliament and democracy. Perhaps no representations have been made because there is no question of the Parliament Acts being invoked at any time during this period of government because no single party was elected to government.

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman’s question is about the Salisbury convention, which is one of many conventions that entrench the relationship between the other place and the House of Commons. The Parliament Acts are also vital in that regard. We have no intention of altering either the Acts or the convention.

Topical Questions

Graeme Morrice: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Nicholas Clegg: As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on the full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government, I take special responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

Graeme Morrice: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. Now that the Deputy Prime Minister is even less popular than the Swiss entry in the recent Eurovision contest—at least they got 19 points—what immediate plans does he have to redeem himself in the public eye? Moreover, what principle or value is he not prepared to sell out over in his quest to cling to power?

Nicholas Clegg: Well read and well rehearsed! I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that I am not going to flinch from for one minute, and that is to clear up the mess left by Labour. Because of the sheer economic incompetence of the Labour party in government, this country, on the backs of our children and grandchildren, is borrowing £400 million a day. He might think that is okay; I do not.

Anne McIntosh: Can the Deputy Prime Minister give the House a timetable for his proposed reforms of the House of Lords? Will it be during the life of this Parliament, and how flexible are the proportions? Would he consider 30, 30 and 30?

Nicholas Clegg: The timetable is that the Joint Committee of both Houses first needs to complete its work, and we hope that it will do so in the early stages of next year, with a view to the Government then publishing a Bill in the second Session in order to see the first steps in a reformed House of Lords and the first elections taking place in 2015.

Harriet Harman: People are worried about the NHS being turned from a public service into a commercial market. Part 3 of the Health and Social Care Bill makes this about profits, not patients. The Deputy Prime Minister has reportedly told his Back Benchers that he is against that, so will he tell the House now that the Government will strike out of the Bill the whole of part 3? He has been talking tough in private, but will he say it here in public?

Nicholas Clegg: I can be very clear, and the Government as a whole can be very clear, that there will be no privatisation of the NHS. It will not be run for profit and it will not be fragmented; it will be free at the point of use based on need rather than the ability to pay—full stop.

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman ducked the question on part 3, did he not? It is clear that he will not stand up for the NHS against the Tories. There has been a pause in Parliament, but have not the Tories told him that on the ground they are forging ahead with this?

Nicholas Clegg: It was the right hon. and learned Lady’s party in government that rigged contracts with private sector providers, undermining the NHS and undermining NHS hospitals—a rigged contract with private sector providers to undermine the very ethos of the NHS. We are legislating to make sure that, once and for all, there is a level playing field in the NHS for everyone who is providing care to the British people.

Gavin Barwell: Just 30,000 of the 5.5 million British citizens living overseas are registered to vote. What plans do the Government have to make it easier for them to register and to lengthen the election timetable so that those who do register can vote by post?

Nicholas Clegg: I think there is a strong case for lengthening the election timetable to address that issue. We are looking at the matter in detail and will come forward with proposals as soon as we can.

John Cryer: The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he is prepared to see Liberal MPs and peers veto the Health and Social Care Bill. Given that, why did he sign the foreword to the health White Paper?

Nicholas Clegg: The principles of the White Paper were less bureaucracy, more patient-centred health, greater control for people who know patients best so that they can decide where money circulates in the system, greater accountability, and less centralisation. First, those are worthwhile reforms. Secondly, they build on many of the reforms that the Labour party introduced when in government. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were more honest, they would back our attempt to listen to the British people and reform the NHS so that it is safeguarded for future generations.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure no one is suggesting that any right hon. or hon. Member would be dishonest in this Chamber. [ Interruption. ] Order. I take that as read.

Charlie Elphicke: Did not the Government inherite an unreformed, unwieldy, unaccountable health service that was partly privatised, and are not these reforms necessary to secure the future of the health service for the next generation?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Opposition Members simply cannot get their heads around the fact that this Government are prepared to listen. We are prepared to listen to doctors, nurses, consultants and patients. What is more—this is something the Labour Government never did—when we think we can improve our proposals, we are prepared to do so.

Graham Stringer: The Deputy Prime Minister has repeated ad nauseam that the commitment to reform the House of Lords was in all three parties’ manifestos. [Hon. Members: “It was.”] Of course it was. Does that not mean that the electorate did not have the choice to vote for somebody who did not want to reform the House of Lords? Is there not therefore a strong case for a referendum on this issue, which is much more important than AV?

Nicholas Clegg: A seriously surreal doctrine is emerging. The hon. Gentleman was unable to persuade his colleagues to exclude the issue from the
	manifesto, so he wants to circumvent the manifesto on which he stood at the last general election by way of a referendum.

Jesse Norman: I know that the Deputy Prime Minister shares my view that the influence of lobbying can cause serious defamation to the democratic process. Will he update the House on the status of his register of lobbyists?

Nicholas Clegg: The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), has announced in the House that we are consulting on that matter. We hope that the consultation will proceed during the summer to meet the objective in the coalition agreement of creating a register of lobbyists.

Stella Creasy: Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the discussions he has had with his Government and party colleagues on the circumstances in which parliamentarians should be above the rule of law?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not think that anyone should be above the rule of law. If we do not like the law in this place, we should act as legislators to change the law, not flout it.

David Amess: Given that the Deputy Prime Minister’s proposals for House of Lords reform were not met with total acclaim last week, will he reflect on the points that have been made last week and this week, and try to seek consensus on the issue? To invoke the Parliament Act would be a most unwise move.

Nicholas Clegg: I do not think that any proposal to reform the other place has been met with total acclaim for as long as the matter has been discussed, which is more than a century. That is the nature of the issue. There are strong feelings on all sides of the debate and, let us be frank, some strong vested interests who do not want to see any change. That is why we want to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend that, where possible, we should proceed on a cross-party basis on something as significant as this.

Chi Onwurah: Under the Government’s proposals, Newcastle will have a mayor and a police commissioner imposed on it by London. Given that the people of Newcastle recently voted overwhelmingly for a Labour council to replace a Lib Dem one, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the democratic voice of the people of Newcastle is loudly against wasting money on such vanity projects?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not think there is anything wrong with asking people to vote for more representatives, particularly on issues as important as policing. The basic principle of enhancing and increasing accountability, and of enriching our democracy by giving people more opportunity to express their opinions at the ballot box, seems to me a good one.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Given the announcement that Anglican bishops will remain in the newly reformed House of Lords, does the Deputy Prime Minister have any ideas about representation for other Christian groups, and indeed other faiths?

Nicholas Clegg: One of the options that we have set out in detail in the draft Bill is indeed continued representation, if on a much reduced numerical basis, of what is after all the established Church in England. That is clearly what distinguishes it from other faiths in England.

Kerry McCarthy: During the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election earlier this year, the Deputy Prime Minister said about the newly opened Tesco in Greenfield that we needed to
	“keep our high streets diverse, and make sure that we support small shops as well as big ones”.
	Why, then, did his party vote against Labour’s new clause 29 to the Localism Bill, which would have required councils to include a retail diversity scheme in their local development framework?

Nicholas Clegg: We feel that the provisions in the Localism Bill, which give local communities an ability to express their views on what they want to happen in their neighbourhoods to an extent that did not exist for the 13 years under Labour, are sufficient to meet precisely the demand that the hon. Lady makes.

Menzies Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any discussion of the West Lothian question, and therefore of the role of Scottish MPs in this place, would necessarily have to include the position of Welsh MPs and those from Northern Ireland, where there are also devolved forms of government?

Nicholas Clegg: That is one of the many questions that we are now considering in advance of making an announcement about the establishment of the commission to look into the West Lothian question, which we will do during the course of this year.

Alun Michael: The Deputy Prime Minister has just said that he is in favour of the public having more people to vote for. Has he read the Hansard proceedings of last week’s debate in Westminster Hall, in which Conservative, Labour and Plaid Cymru MPs criticised the fact that the relationship between Wales and Westminster was being put at risk by the cut in representation from 40 MPs to 30? Only Liberal Democrats seem willing to defend that policy. Is he ready to repent, or has he given up on Wales?

Nicholas Clegg: What I have not given up on is having a system of election that is fair. I do not think it is right or fair to have some Members of the House representing far, far fewer constituents than colleagues in other constituencies. The principle that all of us should represent roughly the same number of people seems to me a basic one.

David Evennett: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to review the effectiveness of the current methods of electoral registration, and to assist all councils to maximise the number of people on the electoral register?

Nicholas Clegg: We are planning to legislate to introduce individual electoral registration, which of course is intended principally to deal with cases of electoral fraud. At the same time, we hope to pilot in the coming months new schemes to compare the electoral register with other publicly available databases, so that electoral registration officers can go out to communities in which they are active and ensure that if people are missing on one database, they can be included in the other.

Bill Esterson: The Deputy Prime Minister told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that there would be no privatisation of the NHS. I will give him another chance. Will he oppose part 3 of the Health and Social Care Bill, or are his comments just meaningless words?

Nicholas Clegg: There is a world of difference between allowing patients greater choice and ensuring that there is diversity in how the best health care is provided to patients, and any sell-off of the NHS to bargain-basement bidders, which we have ruled out. There will be no privatisation of that kind whatever under this Government’s plans.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister has noticed that if proportional representation is used for a reformed House of Lords, the Liberal Democrats will almost always hold the balance of power in the other place. Does he intend to make being Deputy Prime Minister a job for life?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in a House of Lords without any elections of any description whatever, no party has an overall majority in any event, so a balance of power in a reformed House of Lords is no different from the status quo.

Mark Durkan: If, as the Deputy Prime Minister told us last week, the main role of a reformed House of Lords will be as a revising Chamber, why does he propose that people should be appointed under prime ministerial patronage as Ministers and Members of that House? Would it not be better if nobody could sit as a Minister in that House? Would not that properly differentiate the role of this Chamber from that one?

Nicholas Clegg: We looked at this very carefully and proposed, on balance, that a very small number of appointees should be Lords only for the time that they hold ministerial office. We need to ensure that Ministers are held to account in either this Chamber or the other place. We therefore felt it right to suggest that the Prime Minister retains a prerogative for a very small number of positions, so that for the limited time that those appointees are Ministers, they are accountable to the reformed House of Lords.

David Burrowes: The Deputy Prime Minister has been a good supporter of my constituent, Gary McKinnon, and his case. He will recall that when the Prime Minister visited America, President Obama said that because of the unsurpassed special relationship between our countries, an appropriate solution would be found. Will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that the case of Gary McKinnon is raised during the President’s visit, and does he agree that the appropriate solution is to stop that extradition to the US?

Nicholas Clegg: I cannot anticipate exactly what will be said in those meetings, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman, and everybody who has followed the case with great interest over a long period, welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has made it quite clear that she is available to listen to new representations from Gary McKinnon, his family and his solicitors; that she will judge that new information against the impact on his human rights; and that she will make up her mind in a quasi-judicial form as soon as possible.

George Howarth: Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how a second Chamber elected under a different voting system, some of whose Members could be elected for 15 years, and almost certainly on a different manifesto altogether, would improve the legislative process?

Nicholas Clegg: I always thought that the Labour party was against bastions of privilege and patronage. I thought that one of the founding principles of the so-called progressive party was that it believed that the British people should be in charge, not politicians in Westminster. Labour Members seem to be turning their backs, yet again, on one of their many long-standing traditions.

James Clappison: Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that the proposed new House of Lords will cost more or less than the existing one?

Nicholas Clegg: We want to reduce the number of people in the reformed House of Lords very dramatically—the draft Bill and White Paper that we published last week suggests 300 Members. Exactly what the cost will be depends, of course, on the proportions of elected and non-elected Members, so it is quite difficult to come up with precise estimates at this stage.

Rachel Reeves: Good businesses in all our constituencies are being denied bank lending, and new data show that bank lending to small businesses is £2 billion short of the Government’s targets. When will the Government show some backbone and take robust action on the banks?

Nicholas Clegg: That comes from a party that let the banks run completely amok, and a party that landed us with that problem in the first place! However, I totally agree with the hon. Lady on the Merlin agreement, which the Government have signed with the banks—it commits the banks to lending targets to businesses generally, and to small and medium-sized enterprises specifically. The agreement is in its very early days, but we have made it unambiguously clear to the banks that they must honour its terms. If they fail to do so, we will not be bound by our side of it either.

Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us who have to support his and the Government’s measures night after night cannot understand why, when the country is in such crisis, he is prepared to invoke the Parliament Act and gridlock essential legislation in the other place? Will he invoke the Tory principle of gradualism, ditch those radical proposals and come back with something much more modest?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not know what could be more gradualist than a proposal that would start in 2015 and not be complete until 2025. Many of the options for transition that we set out in the White Paper could not reasonably be accused of going too fast. We totally accept that a change on this scale, given that it has been discussed for more than 100 years, needs to be done carefully and incrementally.

Dennis Skinner: At the beginning of Question Time, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was against “privatisation”. Half an hour later he said that he was against “privatisation of that kind”. A week used to be a long time in politics, but he has reduced it to half an hour.

Nicholas Clegg: I said there would be no privatisation of the NHS, and that is what I meant. There will be no privatisation of the NHS.

Jo Swinson: Will the Deputy Prime Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will resist any siren calls to water down the Equality Act as part of the red tape challenge?

Nicholas Clegg: I can certainly confirm that, as far as I am concerned, there will be no move to dilute incredibly important protections to enshrine and bolster equality in this country under the guise of dealing with unnecessary or intrusive regulation.

Barry Sheerman: If the Deputy Prime Minister is in listening mode, from where is he hearing a vote or voice calling for a House of Commons diminished in power and influence?

Nicholas Clegg: I ask the hon. Gentleman, as I ask all his Opposition colleagues: what is wrong with the basic democratic principle that those who create the laws of the land should be accountable to the millions of people who have to abide by the laws of the land? It used to be called democracy. It used to be something the Labour party believed in. I do not know why it is turning its back yet again on a progressive step towards further reform.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Domestic and Sexual Violence

Diana Johnson: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the provision of specialist domestic and sexual violence services to support prosecutions involving allegations of such offences.

Dominic Grieve: I have not held specific discussions with ministerial colleagues on the provision of domestic and sexual violence services to support prosecutions. The Solicitor-General is a member of the inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which is responsible for monitoring progress against its action plan. This action plan identifies the importance of support for victims of violence against women.

Diana Johnson: I know that the Attorney-General has recognised the importance of specialist services in pushing up prosecution rates. Does he share my concern about the cuts to these services up and down the country? If so, what is he doing about it?

Dominic Grieve: It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the Department for Communities and Local Government has secured £6.5 billion of funding for the Supporting People programme, which will include accommodation for vulnerable people, including domestic violence victims, over the next four years. That equates to an average annual reduction over the four years of less than 1% in cash terms. In addition, I can reassure the hon. Lady that the issue continues to be a high priority for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. The evidence to date suggests that despite the difficult financial climate, the success rate for prosecuting this type of offence continues to improve.

Eleanor Laing: Will the Attorney-General agree that, contrary to recent media distortion, Members on both sides of the House take crimes of violence against women very seriously indeed? Will he further assure the House that the Government will continue to support alleged victims of rape and that he will do all he can to ensure that justice is done in cases that are often very difficult to prosecute?

Dominic Grieve: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is the position. The provision of specialist co-ordinators and rape prosecutors, the issuing of stalking guidance and the effective monitoring of the measures we have put in place will continue. As I said in answer to the earlier question, the evidence suggests that the good work done by the previous Government is being successfully continued. I want to emphasise that both in terms of the volume of prosecutions and their success rate.

Crown Prosecution Service

Luciana Berger: What priorities the Crown Prosecution Service has set during the comprehensive spending review period.

Gavin Shuker: What priorities the Crown Prosecution Service has set during the comprehensive spending review period.

Edward Garnier: The priorities are to provide a prosecution service of the highest quality, informed by its core quality standards, published in April 2010, which set the measures by which the CPS is judged by itself and others; to provide a more streamlined
	and efficient service, for example by making good use of all available technology; and, by working with the police and the courts, to eliminate unnecessarily bureaucratic systems, while at all times promoting justice.

Luciana Berger: I thank the Solicitor-General for his answer, but will he respond to the serious concerns of defence barristers and Victim Support about the CPS instructing single counsel for the prosecution, including for murder cases with multiple defendants, as a result of cost pressures?

Edward Garnier: I do not know whether that is a direct result of cost pressures, but I, too, have raised this very matter with the CPS, and we are looking into it with some care.

Gavin Shuker: The cost pressures on the CPS over the coming period are leading it to prioritise cases such as those involving serious domestic or sexual offences. What cases will it have to de-prioritise to achieve those aims?

Edward Garnier: In all prosecuting decisions, the CPS will look at the prosecutors code to see whether there is sufficient evidence and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. It is not a question of picking one type of crime and not picking another.

Anne McIntosh: I support the Government’s drive for more prosecutions of rape. Will the Solicitor-General support my move to allocate a centre to North Yorkshire and York to help victims of rape? Were we to have such a centre—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not sure that this is a priority of the Crown Prosecution Service, but the Solicitor-General can respond to the first part of the question briefly.

Edward Garnier: I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the way in which rape cases are currently prosecuted. As was stated in this House the other day, we want to bear down on the attrition rate. The conviction rate bears comparison with other aspects of the criminal system, but we want to ensure that rape victims can report their allegations to the police and that they are treated with care and sensitivity right the way through to what we hope is a conviction.

Tom Watson: The Prime Minister has said that it should be a priority for the CPS and the Metropolitan police to follow the evidence where it goes in the phone hacking scandal. Will the Minister say whether it is cost pressures at the CPS that have left the Metropolitan police reluctant to pursue the evidence of other private investigators involved in the illegal covert surveillance of British citizens?

Edward Garnier: I do not think that that is at all true. The hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in this matter and I have no criticism of him for doing that, but the relationship between the CPS and the Metropolitan police is entirely clear and constitutional, and will, as the Prime Minister has said, permit both to lead the investigation to where the evidence takes it.

CPS Advocate Panels

Stephen Phillips: What plans he has to reduce the administrative burden on those completing references for candidates for appointment to Crown Prosecution Service advocate panels.

Dominic Grieve: On 17 May 2011, the Crown Prosecution Service announced three changes to improve the reference process: allowing additional time by extending the deadline for applications by two months; removing the requirement for a minimum number of judicial references; and allowing references to be submitted directly to the CPS, rather than via the candidate.

Stephen Phillips: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, but he will probably know that the completion of such references—indeed, the entire process—places a considerable burden on the judiciary and others. Will he undertake to ensure that a rather more simplified procedure is applied the next time such an exercise is undertaken?

Dominic Grieve: As my hon. and learned Friend will be aware, the issue is ensuring that the panels prepared by the CPS are of a high quality, and are able to provide both sustained support to the CPS and regular work to the barristers who are on them. I have to say that I do not agree that the forms are particularly onerous to fill in. A form requiring somebody to provide between 100 and 300 words of reference does not seem to me to be onerous. Many judges are very happy to fill it in, but there are always lessons to be learned from any process of change, and I will bear in mind his comments.

Anna Soubry: Does the Attorney-General agree that there is widespread concern among the criminal Bar about the new procedure, notably the fact that someone who is unsuccessful in applying for one grade is not allowed to apply for another? There seems to be no parity with CPS in-house advocates.

Dominic Grieve: The process of evaluation of CPS in-house advocates is at present extremely complicated, and rather thorough. I do not think that it could be satisfactorily extended to the independent Bar. Discussions on the panels’ structure are continuing between the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Bar Council the Criminal Bar Association and the circuits, and I am rather confident that they will find a satisfactory solution. I would like to emphasise, however, that the provision of those services by the independent Bar in future is dependent on having an effective panel system in which there is widespread confidence.

Forced Marriage

Emma Reynolds: What recent discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on the prosecution of cases involving allegations of forced marriage.

Mary Glindon: What recent discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on the prosecution of cases involving allegations of forced marriage.

Edward Garnier: I have had no recent discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service on forced marriages, but I shall have one of my regular meetings with the director later today, at which I have no doubt the matter will be discussed. The CPS and the Law Officers are studying the Home Affairs Committee’s report on forced marriages, and the Government will respond to it in due course.

Emma Reynolds: I thank the Minister for his answer. Forced marriages are an appalling abuse of human rights and have no place in modern society. May I press him further on the subject of the Home Affairs Committee’s report and ask whether the Government will consider legislating to make forced marriage a criminal offence?

Edward Garnier: I am sure that the Government will, but it will essentially be a matter for the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to consider. The matter was considered by the previous Administration. The Labour Government held a consultation via the Home Office in 2005, and announced in 2006 that, on balance, they did not consider that it would be advantageous to turn forced marriage into a criminal offence. The Select Committee’s report is now available for us all to consider, and the Government will come back to the House with their response.

Mary Glindon: Forced marriage and associated crimes are already thought to be chronically under-reported. Will the Minister explain how 25% cuts to the CPS’s budget will enable more, rather than fewer, victims of forced marriage to come forward?

Edward Garnier: The most essential thing in this area of the criminal law, as in any other, is to encourage people who have been affected to come forward with evidence, because it is upon evidence that we can bring prosecutions. I can assure the hon. Lady that neither the Attorney-General nor I is in the least bit reluctant to encourage the prosecution of people who have committed crimes. The CPS works hard to ensure that women, in particular—forced marriage cases principally involve women, but about 17% of those affected are men—are properly protected by the law of England, and we will endeavour to ensure that they are.

Fraud and Economic Crime

Karl Turner: What steps he is taking to maintain the capacity of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate and prosecute economic crime during the comprehensive spending review period.

Stephen McCabe: What steps he is taking to ensure the effective prosecution of cases involving fraud and economic crime.

Lisa Nandy: What steps he is taking to maintain the capacity of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate and prosecute economic crime during the comprehensive spending review period.

Dominic Grieve: The Serious Fraud Office will meet the requirements of the comprehensive spending review by making efficiency
	savings in all areas of its business and ensuring that its budget is focused on its core activities of investigating and prosecuting crime. The Crown Prosecution Service also recognises the need to ensure that fraud and economic crime are prosecuted effectively and efficiently. Its structure ensures that cases requiring input and direction by specialist prosecutors are dealt with rigorously.

Karl Turner: The director of the Serious Fraud Office has said:
	“My concern has always been if investigations and prosecution powers…are split, the fight against complex economic crime will be damaged.”
	Does the Minister share those concerns? If so, why are this Government insistent on letting dodgy bankers off?

Dominic Grieve: I am not quite sure that I see the direct correlation between the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question and the first. On the structure of the Serious Fraud Office, it is certainly my opinion that the present structure has been successful in delivering growing effectiveness in dealing with serious and complex fraud. The director has an important point to make. The Government are discussing how they can achieve the best structures for dealing with serious and complex crimes of all kinds, and discussions are taking place on how the Serious Fraud Office will fit into that structure. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the point that he has raised is very much in the Government’s mind.

Stephen McCabe: Nevertheless, the director of the Serious Fraud Office has major concerns. If the Attorney-General is determined to pursue this route, what assurance can he give the House that the impact of the change on complex crime prosecutions will be monitored, so that it does not have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is concerned about?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman pre-judges a decision that has not been made. It is sensible within government for discussion to take place on how to improve the services, including prosecution, that the Government deliver. My point in reply to the earlier question was that the director has an important role in contributing to that debate, and I am sure that his views will be listened to very carefully. I certainly listen to them very carefully indeed.

Lisa Nandy: In his previous question session, the Solicitor-General told the House that the UK’s international reputation on tackling corruption would be safeguarded by his getting on with his job. Will he therefore explain how he expects staff at the SFO to get on with their crucial jobs in the face of 50% budget cuts and the separation of its investigation and prosecution functions?

Dominic Grieve: The first point to make is that the Serious Fraud Office is getting on with the job very effectively indeed. During 2010-11, it took 17 complex cases to trial with at least one conviction in every case; 31 defendants, both corporate and individual, went to trial, of whom 26 were found guilty, giving a conviction rate of 84%. That is an extremely good rate, and I wish to see it continued and built on. I have every confidence in the professionalism of the Serious Fraud Office and
	in its dedicated staff in delivering its service. I have every confidence that they will be able to do so in the future as well.

Catherine McKinnell: As The Times reports today, the Government’s proposals on serious fraud and international corruption are in total disarray. First, there was dilly-dallying over the Bribery Act 2010 and now there are trailed press reports on dismantling the SFO. Are the Government following the trend and going soft on economic crime? When will a statement on the SFO’s future be made, and will the Attorney-General confirm that it will be made first on the Floor of the House?

Dominic Grieve: I have no doubt at all that it will be made first on the Floor of the House, but I entirely disagree with the hon. Lady’s premises. The position is very straightforward. The SFO is doing a good job, but I think everybody agrees that we need to see ways of improving the fight against economic crime. To take the hon. Lady’s point to its logical conclusion, there should be no discussion in government or anywhere else about such structures because doing so might raise some uncertainty. I simply do not share that view. I am confident that we will come out with the correct outcomes and that they will enhance our capacity to deal with economic crime generally. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I was trying to indicate gently that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) must not leave before the question has been concluded. I am sure that he is enjoying the exchanges.

Jim Shannon: In parts of the United Kingdom, there is widespread organised criminal activity. During the comprehensive spending review, what assurance can the Minister give us that those involved will not be able to gain yet more from their illegal and ill-gotten deeds and activities?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, perhaps missed by other questioners —that there are different kinds of economic crimes, some of which move into serious organised crime as well. That is why it is so important for the Government to give this matter a high priority. As I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), that is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others, as well as me, have been focusing on how to deliver the best outcome to cover the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has spoken about, while also ensuring that the financial end of serious crime is tackled correctly. I am very confident that we are going to come up with the right solutions.

Tom Clarke: Will the Attorney-General assure us that the Serious Fraud Office will not be swallowed up by the national crime agency, relegating fraud and corruption to third place after terrorism and organised crime?

Dominic Grieve: I am absolutely confident—because of my own commitment and that of my fellow Ministers to this matter—that the area of crime the right hon. Gentleman identifies is of the highest priority to the Government. That is precisely why it is being
	discussed. I can reassure him—and I will stand by it when the time comes for announcements—that the outcome will commend itself, I hope, widely across the House.

Transnational Bribery

Hugh Bayley: When he last met the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss the investigation and prosecution of transnational bribery.

Edward Garnier: I hold monthly meetings with the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss all aspects of the SFO’s work, including transnational bribery. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Bribery Act 2010 comes into force on 1 July and the SFO is well prepared for it.

Hugh Bayley: I was reassured by some of what the Attorney-General said in reply to an earlier group of questions. Richard Alderman is a very talented civil
	servant who has greatly improved the performance of the SFO, but I believe that that improvement is threatened by the proposal to break the SFO into an investigating arm and a prosecuting arm. It appears that the Law Officers are currently having an argument with the Home Office about the matter. The House clearly supports the Law Officers. May I have an assurance that even if the nature of the SFO changes, the prosecuting and investigating arms of whatever new agency takes over will be kept under one roof?

Edward Garnier: I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree with his assessment of the SFO’s director, Mr Richard Alderman, who has proved to be a loyal and dedicated public servant and prosecutor in whom the Attorney-General and I have the utmost confidence.
	I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Law Officers. We accept whatever support we can whenever we can get it. On that basis, I will quit while I am ahead.

Libya

Jim Murphy: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to update the House on military deployments in Libya.

Nick Harvey: Pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, NATO-led air strikes have been successful in reducing Colonel Gaddafi’s ability to attack his people, but he continues to target civilians in clear contravention of UN Security Council resolutions and international law. As the Foreign Secretary has said, it is now necessary to intensify the military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the Gaddafi regime.
	We constantly review our military operations to ensure that we can continue to enforce UNSCR 1973 and prevent Gaddafi from attacking the Libyan people. Attack helicopters are one tool for that purpose, and the use of such helicopters is one of a range of capability options under consideration. However, I stress that no decision has yet been made about whether to use our attack helicopters in Libya. We will keep the House informed as decisions are made.

Jim Murphy: Thank you for allowing the urgent question, Mr Speaker.
	The Opposition have always made it clear that we support the stated aims of the military operation in Libya: to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973, to protect Libyan civilians, and to implement a no-fly zone. We have also made it clear not just that we support the Government and the UN mandate, but that it is crucial for Parliament to have an opportunity to scrutinise Government decisions and the campaign in Libya.
	Yesterday Le Figaro reported that 12 French helicopters had been dispatched to Libya on 17 May. There was no comment from the Ministry of Defence other than
	“we are constantly reviewing our options”,
	but the French Defence Minister, Gérard Longuet, said:
	“The British, who have assets similar to ours, will also commit…The sooner the better is what the British think.”
	Is that an accurate statement by a French Minister of the British Government’s policy on Libya? The British people will be desperately concerned that French Ministers seem to know more about the deployment of British military equipment than the British Parliament.
	Parliament has not written the Government a blank cheque on Libya, and Ministers should never keep the British public in the dark about major deployments. This is a serious moment, and it would be a serious escalation if such a commitment were to be made. Parliament should never be kept in the dark.
	I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, why have discussions about an escalation of such magnitude with our French partners and colleagues reached such an advanced stage without Parliament being allowed even the courtesy of discussion or scrutiny? Secondly, will the Minister go into more detail about the situation on the ground which is leading Ministers at least to consider—and, in a private conversation with the French, to confirm—this military commitment?
	Thirdly, if this were to happen, would the operational allowance be extended to those serving in and around Libya in the same way as in respect of Afghanistan? Fourthly, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Defence Analysis estimation that the cost of the conflict could be £1 billion by September? Finally, will he say more about the UK’s military capability to maintain the current tempo, and have the Government decided to order further Brimstone?
	Parliament thought long and hard about whether to commit military force over Libya on behalf of the United Kingdom. The House sought in good conscience to take a deep and significant decision about our nation, and now we are expected simply to wave through a possible major escalation in military commitment without a proper debate in Parliament. It is utterly unacceptable that the UK Parliament has to be informed about a possible deployment of UK forces by the French Defence Minister.
	On this complicated issue, the Government need to provide greater clarity. On behalf of this Parliament and those who voted for this conflict, which we support—and, indeed, on behalf of those who voted against the conflict—Parliament is right to demand that decisions such as this one are announced in this Parliament, debated in this Parliament, scrutinised in this Parliament, and should never be kept from Parliament again.

Nick Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman quotes the French Minister, and my understanding is that the French have indeed taken a decision to deploy their attack helicopters in Libya. I state again for the avoidance of all doubt that no such decision has been taken by the United Kingdom. It is an option that we are considering, but no decision has been taken, and there is absolutely no sense in which it is true to say that we have kept Parliament in the dark about a decision that we have taken.
	I do not accept that if we were to take the decision to use attack helicopters at some point in the future, that would be an “escalation” of what we are doing in Libya. The targets would remain the same; it would simply be a tactical shift in what assets we used to try to hit those targets. The right hon. Gentleman asks why we would consider doing this, and what would be the military logic of contemplating using attack helicopters. The principal advantage it would give us over the air assets we are currently deploying is the ability to strike moving targets with greater precision.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the costs. I do not recognise the figure he gives. It is not possible to compute in real time a figure, but I say to him again that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that the cost of this operation will be met by the reserve.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about maintaining the momentum. We keep our stocks under regular review, including specifically of Brimstone. We are content that we can keep going for the foreseeable future, but we will have to make adjustments as time goes on and calculate whether it will be necessary to increase our stocks.
	On the operational allowance, the arrangements will remain as they are, but we are looking into the possibility of extending special consideration for those who would not meet the normal criteria.
	The Government have been doing their utmost to ensure that the House is kept informed about what is going on. There have been debates and questions, and we have given several briefings, and if the right hon.
	Gentleman feels at any stage that he needs more information, he needs only to ask and we will do everything we can to afford him that information. We are involved in a military operation, however. We have to consider from time to time the tactics we are using, and you will understand, Mr Speaker, why we would not do so in advance on the Floor of the House. Apart from anything else, telling the enemy exactly what we are up to would be a very unusual strategy. As soon as decisions are taken, however, we will ensure that Parliament is informed.

Nicholas Soames: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. If the Apache helicopter were to be deployed, that would be entirely appropriate, particularly given the Gaddafi forces’ change in tactics, and the requirement to have a highly effective machine that can lurk and deal with the hard-to-find targets. What steps would need to be taken to marinise the Apache if it were to be operating off-carrier?

Nick Harvey: I agree with my hon. Friend that we are right to consider this in pursuance, as I said, of UNSCR 1973. Gaddafi and his regime remain a real threat to the civilian population in Libya and if we were to take a decision to use an attack helicopter, it would be in pursuit of that resolution. Such helicopters give us a greater ability to pinpoint targets, we are able to operate them from HMS Ocean or other maritime assets, and there is no need for any specific adaptation in order to do that.

David Winnick: Like many others, I am very concerned about the massive air raid that took place last night, which will inevitably cause civilian casualties, although I entirely accept that the Gaddafi regime will try to make as much propaganda of it as possible. Is the Minister aware that there is an increasing feeling that, despite denials, resolution 1973 is being used for regime change? I emphasise again that regime change is totally outside international law.

Nick Harvey: We are very familiar with the terms of UNSCR 1973, which remains absolutely our abiding objective. I recognise that there are risks inherent in whatever military options we take, but let me reassure the House that we are doing our utmost, and so are our NATO allies, to ensure that there is no loss of civilian life. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is in sharp distinction to the Gaddafi regime, which is retaining that loss as its objective and is continuing to cause it. We are there to prevent it from doing so.

Menzies Campbell: May I sympathise with the Minister’s reluctance to permit a running commentary on operations in Libya, for the reasons that he has outlined? Were Apache helicopters, which carry missiles, to be deployed, how would that be different in principle from the use of fast jets carrying missiles?

Nick Harvey: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend: the objective and the targets would remain exactly the same, but we would have at our disposal a weapon with a greater degree of precision, which is better able to hit targets, including moving ones, and with a lower risk of collateral damage. This
	would be a tactical switch from using one asset to using another, which is why I do not believe it would constitute an escalation, but I repeat that no such decision has, as yet, been taken. The French have taken a decision and announced it. We have not taken that decision, but I confirm that it is an option we are considering.

John McDonnell: This decision, if it is made, would make a qualitative difference to the strategy, because it would mean a greater risk to British service personnel. For that reason, the Government should seek not only a debate on the Floor of the House, but a renewed vote to sanction any such measure. May I also ask the Minister what efforts are being made, again, to get a negotiated settlement to this war?

Nick Harvey: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The use of attack helicopters in contested territory is certainly inherently dangerous—about that there can be no doubt—but they have been used elsewhere very effectively and those dangers have not had a deadly effect. I repeat that this is a consideration of using another tactic; this is not a step change in what we are doing. The suggestion that while we are in the course of operations we would come to the House of Commons for a full debate and a fresh resolution every time we took an operational tactical decision is not realistic, and I do not think it would be justified.

James Arbuthnot: As I ordered the attack helicopters, I am rather disappointed to hear that no decision has been taken on their use. I agree entirely with the Minister that firing a missile from a rotary-wing aircraft as opposed to a fixed-wing aircraft is not an escalation, but does he agree that this decision would also help to address another issue of increasing concern, which is the airframe hours left in the Tornados? That matter is worrying a number of people.

Nick Harvey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having placed that order, because the Apache helicopter has proved itself in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years since then. It is useful that it is at our disposal for consideration at this time. I agree that sharing the duties out across our air assets will better enable us to sustain them over a period of time. I repeat that no decision to do that has been taken.

Chris Bryant: The trouble is that if the Government’s aim is not regime change, we are basically at stalemate. The worry for many of my constituents is how long that stalemate will go on.

Nick Harvey: I do not accept that we are at stalemate, as I believe recent events in Misrata have demonstrated. The situation is still dynamic and fluid and we have to respond to the situation on the ground by making tactical decisions. The consideration of whether we should use attack helicopters will be informed in no small part by the tactical call of those closest to it, who make the judgments about what we face.

Mark Lancaster: May I remind the House of my interest as a member of the military stabilisation support group? Will the Minister update the House on the post-conflict reconstruction
	planning and, crucially, does he believe that it will require a further UN resolution to implement it effectively?

Nick Harvey: We already have a stabilisation unit in Benghazi preparing the ground for the post-conflict situation. We would expect the UN to play the leading role in co-ordinating that and there might well be an appetite for EU involvement, too. We are laying the ground as best we can but we are taking these things a stage at a time. The overriding priority at the moment remains preventing Gaddafi and his regime from attacking civilians in Libya.

Ann Clwyd: According to the latest statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross, there is a growing humanitarian crisis on the ground. What can we do to address that?

Nick Harvey: There are certainly immense humanitarian difficulties in various parts of Libya, the most obvious example being Misrata. We were among several nations in sustaining the pressure to get supplies and relief into Misrata. There has been some success with that operation, but one does not want to overclaim on that. It remains an overwhelming priority to ensure that we can relieve humanitarian suffering by all means possible.

John Baron: Whether or not we deploy attack helicopters, the fact that a key NATO ally has represents, in my view at least, a significant escalation in this conflict and reinforces the point that regime change has been the objective of our intervention. Given the air strikes and this latest news, at what point does the Minister believe that our actions on the ground will cross the line as regards UN resolution 1973?

Nick Harvey: My hon. Friend refers to operations on the ground and asks at what point they would cross UNSCR 1973. What was specifically prohibited was a landing and occupying force and I do not see that one can in any way compare the use of attack helicopters to take on moving targets with a landing and occupying force. We are talking about two completely different things. The French have, as I understand it, taken the decision to use attack helicopters, although I do not believe that they have as yet started in practice to do so. I do not accept, for the reasons I set out earlier, that that would constitute an escalation of the conflict in Libya. It would be a tactical shift in the way we were pursuing it.

Mike Gapes: The House is going into recess today and will not resume until 7 June. Given that the Minister has said on several occasions that no decision has been made, can he tell us, first, why the French Defence Minister thinks a decision has been made and, secondly, when this House will know when a decision is made, if it is?

Nick Harvey: I cannot comment on what the French Minister has said, but I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman once again that we have not taken this decision and have not suggested to the French that we have taken it. I am aware that we are about to have a short recess, but it would be wholly unacceptable in my
	view artificially to accelerate a military decision in order to comply with the parliamentary timetable. If a decision is made it will be made according to military criteria and the operations will be conducted in the normal way. We will inform Members as soon as we can if any such decision is taken but I stress again that no such decision has been taken and I cannot anticipate that it will be taken on any particular timetable.

Bernard Jenkin: May I assure my hon. Friend that he is entitled to plan military operations and discuss them with allies in private and that so long as he reports decisions to the House he will not have taken his country’s name in vain in any manner at all? May I draw his attention to the fact that US Carrier Strike Group Two will be visiting Portsmouth this weekend and then proceeding to the Mediterranean? Will President Obama be included in these discussions about military options in Libya, because we either have to break the stalemate or broker a peace?

Nick Harvey: I thank my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. He is absolutely right that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said, it would not be appropriate to keep up a running commentary throughout an operation on the tactical decisions we might take. The French have taken a decision and have seen fit to put that into the public domain and that is entirely a matter for the French. So far as the Americans are concerned, it is certainly the case that during President Obama’s visit we will be discussing with him operations in Libya and Afghanistan as well as other world issues. My hon. Friend is entirely right that the US carrier strike group will be passing through the Mediterranean—I understand that is the intention—but these are things that we will keep discussing with allies. Let me say again that absolutely no decision has been taken.

Dennis Skinner: Has not this intervention been subject to mission creep ever since it began, as statements to the House have indicated? There has been a little bit of help here, the use of special forces there and further intervention. It is no surprise to me that the French, who initiated the intervention in the first place because of an election in France next year, are now telling the British Government what the next phase is. How many civilians, whom we were supposed to safeguard, have been killed by NATO forces? When will we reach £1 billion of expenditure on this intervention, which is paid for by the British taxpayer? Is it right what the media say that it will be at the end of this summer, or will it be even sooner?

Nick Harvey: We know for a fact that Gaddafi was on the verge of an absolute bloodbath in Benghazi and that if we had not intervened there would have been an absolute slaughter. In conducting this operation we have at all times done our utmost to minimise the number of civilian casualties, of whom there are far fewer than Gaddafi has killed and would have killed. I do not accept that there has been mission creep from UNSCR 1973 at all. It remains the case that we are prosecuting it to the best of our ability and it remains our overriding priority to reduce the risk to civilian life and the suffering of civilians. The best way in which
	that could be concluded would be for Gaddafi to comply with UN resolution 1973 and stop killing his own civilians.

Stephen Gilbert: I do not see this as an escalation but rather as a proper tactical response to a changing tactical situation on the ground that is in line with UN resolution 1973. We know from Afghanistan and Somalia that helicopters can be more vulnerable to attack than fixed-wing aircraft. What assessment has been made of UK search and rescue capability should one of our helicopters unfortunately be downed?

Nick Harvey: I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks. It is inherently true that the use of attack helicopters in contested territory is dangerous, but we are deploying all our assets through NATO and if we were to decide to use attack helicopters it would be through NATO co-ordinated efforts, so the assets of other partner countries would be available to us to help defend them. We have experience of using Apache helicopters in contested territory and we have successful ways of minimising the threat to them, but it is an inherently dangerous business—there is no way of getting around that.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Minister update the House on how many countries have now sent military advisers to Libya to help the rebels? Can he confirm who is responsible for co-ordinating their work?

Nick Harvey: We have sent some of our own advisers and they are working with the French. We co-ordinate that between us and they are the pre-eminent military advisers. There are some from other countries in that region but they are undertaking specific tasks in co-ordination with the British and French forces, so the predominant effort is Anglo-French and we are co-ordinating it between us.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will he clarify what the assessment is of the situation in southern Libya, bordering Chad—an area with a huge amount of oil deposits?

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is right that there are huge oil assets to the south. I can only repeat that our objective in Libya is the protection of civilians, who we know are predominantly in the north and along those coastal stretches. The regime still has effective control over some of the oil assets to the south, but clearly its efforts to transport and export them have been significantly curtailed by the efforts of the coalition to implement UNSCR 1973.

Tom Watson: My understanding is that the French have publicly briefed the press that the National Security Council has taken the decision to deploy the helicopters. When the Minister says that the decision has not been taken, does he mean that there is a recommendation from the National Security Council awaiting rubber-stamping from the Prime Minister in order to get sign-off from the President for an announcement later in the week?

Nick Harvey: I really cannot be expected to justify what may or may not have been said by French Ministers giving briefings to newspapers. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that no decision has been taken. No decision has been taken by the National Security Council and no recommendation is awaiting the Prime Minister’s approval. It is an option that we are considering and at some point in the future we might decide to go down that route. If the French really have briefed in those terms they have clearly misunderstood the situation in the United Kingdom.

Stephen Phillips: My hon. Friend has been clear that no decision has yet been taken to deploy ground-attack helicopters. May I ask him to assure the House that if such a decision were taken, it would in no way adversely affect our operations in Afghanistan?

Nick Harvey: I can indeed confirm that. There are currently Apache helicopters in the Mediterranean as part of exercise Cougar and if any decision were taken to use Apache helicopters in Libya, they would most likely be the ones used. That would therefore not have any impact on operations in Helmand.

Andy Slaughter: Does the Minister accept that the more regime targets in Tripoli that are bombed and the more tactical weaponry that is employed on the side of the rebels, the more this appears, to the Arab world in particular, as a political rather than a humanitarian intervention?

Nick Harvey: The purpose of our being there is to carry out UNSCR 1973, the objective of which is to reduce the threat to civilian life. What the hon. Gentleman refers to as regime targets are in fact command and control targets—military targets. They are targets relating to the regime’s ability to persecute its own civilians, so those are the targets we have been aiming to hit. I do not accept a narrative from that that regime change is the objective of the exercise. The aim is to prevent the regime from slaughtering its civilians and that will continue to be the aim.

Amber Rudd: If the decision is made, will the Apache helicopters be allowed to land on Libyan soil?

Nick Harvey: I say again that this is simply an option that is being considered, and the detail of how exactly these things would be organised has not yet been worked up. It is not the intention that the helicopters would land. The intention is that they would be deployed, if at all, from naval assets, most probably from HMS Ocean, but that is the sort of detail that is being worked through at present as the option is worked up and considered. It certainly should not be inferred that there is any intention to use helicopters in order to land ground troops and take off in a different direction.

Nick Smith: I endorse the Minister’s emphasis on saving civilian lives. Can he update us on whether the Libyan electricity and water infrastructure has been damaged by bombing in recent weeks?

Nick Harvey: We have no grounds to think so. There are undoubtedly problems with electricity and water supplies in different parts of Libya for different reasons, but we have no grounds to believe that the actions of NATO or any of our allies have had that effect, and of course it is most certainly not our intention or objective to do anything of that kind.

Edward Timpson: What discussions has my hon. Friend had, or does he intend to have, with Arab League countries as part of the decision whether to deploy Apache helicopters?

Nick Harvey: If any decision were to be taken to go down that route, that would be discussed with Arab countries through the contact group. I stress to the House that the Arab League support for what we are doing in Libya remains strong, and we will consult our allies in the Arab League as we go along.

Graham Stringer: The Minister’s reason for withholding information from the House makes no sense at all. If French helicopters are attacking Gaddafi’s forces, there is no tactical advantage to knowing that there will be British helicopters attacking with them; that gives no militarily useful extra information to Gaddafi. When he made the original statement, the Prime Minister gave a commitment to keep the House informed in detail. There should be a votable resolution on the matter because there has undoubtedly been mission creep towards an objective of regime change since the start of this war.

Nick Harvey: I am not withholding information from the House. There is no information to withhold. No decision to deploy attack helicopters has been taken,
	and if any decision is taken we will take steps to inform the House. The idea that we should have a votable resolution each time we make a tactical decision to use a different air asset is ludicrous.

Mark Durkan: In his first answer the Minister spoke of the need to increase the military pressure on the Gaddafi regime, but subsequently refuted any concerns about escalation or regime change. As well as reporting to the House, under resolution 1973 any country or group of countries taking an action under that resolution must report it to the Secretary-General of the UN, who will then refer it to the Security Council. Have the latest actions been reported by France or on NATO’s behalf, and does the Minister anticipate no concerns from any member of the Security Council that the resolution has been exceeded?

Nick Harvey: In my initial answer I was quoting the Foreign Secretary, who said, quite rightly, that we had to step up the pressure on the Gaddafi regime through military, economic and political-diplomatic channels. That is true. I do not, however, accept that there is any significant escalation or a broadening of our military objectives. It remains the case that our overriding objective is to prevent the threat to civilian life, and if there are different assets that different members of the international force working in Libya can bring to bear at different points in time, I do not think that such micro-operational decisions need bother the Secretary-General of the UN. However, if we were to shift focus significantly on what we were doing, that would be of a different order altogether, and the UN very well might be involved.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Minister of State and to colleagues.

Green Investment Bank

Vincent Cable: Today I am publishing detailed plans for a green investment bank, building on the announcements that the Deputy Prime Minister made yesterday. Copies of the document will be placed in the Libraries and will be available to download from the BIS website. I would like to take the opportunity from inform the House of these proposals.
	The UK will be the first country in the world to create a bank dedicated to the greening of the economy. This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK makes a successful transition to a low-carbon economy. This will be a big challenge. The UK is committed by law to a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025. Over the coming decades, much of the UK’s energy, transport and waste infrastructure will have to be revolutionised or even rebuilt in order to achieve the ambition of decarbonised electricity, low-emission cars and an end to landfill. This transition will involve considerable costs, but also considerable benefits if new enterprise can seize the opportunities presented by the green economy. The task for our Government is to ensure that these benefits exceed the costs.
	Vital to achieving a successful transition is the development of well-designed, long-term and stable policies. They are needed to provide the incentive for businesses to invest in new green infrastructure, which by its very nature repays the investment only over many years. To this end the Government have introduced a carbon price floor, proposals on electricity market reform, the green deal for energy efficiency in buildings, a major waste policy review and new initiatives to encourage the roll-out of electric vehicles.
	However, the lack of available finance could be a limiting factor. Detailed research and market analysis have established the need for an institution to address market failures that are constraining the flow of finance. The proposals published today set out a vision for a new and enduring institution—the world’s first dedicated national green investment bank—to complement the existing policy landscape.
	The green investment bank’s mission will be to accelerate private sector investment, with an initial remit to focus on relatively high-risk projects that are otherwise likely to proceed slowly or not at all. It will work to a “double bottom line” of both achieving significant environmental impact and making financial returns delivering value for money. It will also operate independently and at arm’s length from Government, who will agree its strategic long-term priorities. Initial market analysis suggests that the early contenders to be priority sectors for the bank are offshore wind, industrial energy efficiency and waste, but a wider range of energy and other activities could become relevant over time.
	The new institution will need to comply with state aid rules. Therefore, the proposals that I am publishing today will need to be approved by the European Commission before we can establish the bank. The time to act is now, so in order to make rapid progress, from April 2012, my department will start to make direct, state aid-compliant investments in green infrastructure projects. Investments could be in the form of equity,
	subordinated debt or senior debt on a pari passu basis. In due course, we will transfer these investments to the new institution.
	I am also creating a green bank advisory group, comprising independent finance experts, who will advise Government on the setting up and strategic direction of the new institution. Sir Adrian Montague has very kindly agreed to chair this advisory group.
	As the Chancellor set out in the Budget this year, the initial capitalisation of the GIB will be £3 billion and the bank will invest with and through the private sector and tackle risks that the private sector cannot adequately finance. In this way, the bank will mobilise projects significantly in excess of the Government’s contribution. With the funding provided in this Parliament the GIB could mobilise an extra £15 billion of private investment. We do not envisage that this level of activity will require a large institution—an estimated 50 to 100 professional staff during this Parliament. Proposals have been made to locate the headquarters in, among others, London, Edinburgh and Bristol, and a decision will be taken in due course based on their ability to deliver the aims of the bank.
	The Government will enable the GIB to have borrowing powers from 2015-16 and once debt is falling as a percentage of GDP, which will allow it to scale up its operations significantly at a time when the financing need is greatest. We are not seeking at this stage to be prescriptive about which form borrowing should take or, more generally, about the bank’s products or structure. Once state aid approval is achieved, we will move to enshrine the institution’s enduring status in legislation.
	In conclusion, setting up a bank of this kind is a major undertaking. There is much work to be done to build and grow the green investment bank, and the Government look forward to updating the House on further milestones in future.

John Denham: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but although the Deputy Prime Minister announced this policy yesterday and the statement was timed for 12.30 pm today, I had not received a copy by 10 minutes to 1, and did not receive it until five minutes to 1.
	A successful green investment bank can make a significant contribution to developing low-carbon technologies and enabling British companies to succeed in the low-carbon green technology markets of the future. That is why the green investment bank was in Labour’s manifesto. Will the Business Secretary confirm that it has taken a year of infighting to get to this stage? Is it not true that the Government are at odds over green policy, and will he confirm that only a month ago he tried to block the adoption of the carbon emissions targets announced this week? So much for “the greenest Government ever”!
	Progress is welcome, but have the Government not already taken a series of decisions that have damaged investment in green technologies and activities? Did they not set feed-in tariffs that encouraged many investors into green energy and then suddenly change the rules, leaving investors high and dry and deeply cynical about the Government’s commitment to green technology? Is the Business Secretary aware that the target for zero-carbon homes by 2016 was encouraging new and innovative business approaches to architecture, building technology,
	skills training and offset technologies? It was already encouraging a supply chain to make our homes greener. Now that has been changed by the flip-flops of Government decision making. Is it not true that when the Severn barrage was abandoned the Government ruled out any tidal investment for five years, so that when this country turns to tidal power we will end up relying on foreign technology?
	Despite all the talk of private investment, where is the evidence for it? Is it not damning that the Pew Environment Group’s report in March stated that investment in renewable technology in the UK crashed from £11 billion in 2009 to £3.3 billion in 2010—due, it says, to political uncertainty. That saw the UK drop from sixth to 13th in the ranking of countries encouraging green investment—another example of the Tories letting go Labour’s green legacy.
	As with the green deal and the electricity market reforms, green businesses know enough about the green investment bank to be excited, but not enough to start planning investments and changing business models. Does the Business Secretary not accept that the bank will not work without much greater consistency, certainty and clarity about Government policies for green energy and the low-carbon economy than we have seen to date?
	When will the green investment bank legislation be brought forward? Will he publish draft legislation so that all those interested can help shape it and ensure that the bank truly does become a long-term part of the infrastructure? How will the bank be staffed, and will he ensure that it is not an offshoot of the Treasury or his Department? Will he learn the lessons of Labour’s technology strategy board, where private sector leadership and real operational independence have helped to contribute to its considerable success? Given non-governmental organisations’ role in shaping all parties’ policies on this issue, will the Secretary of State at least consider allowing an NGO representative to join in the work of the advisory board that he proposes to set up?
	Will the Secretary of State tell the House why the bank will be barred from raising its own finance until 2015 at the earliest? What does he say to the CBI, which made it clear at the time of the Budget that the investment
	“is welcome, but the bank should have powers to borrow from the outset to give investors confidence.”
	Has the Treasury imposed this rule? If so, is that not another case of the Government allowing their preferred reckless approach to deficit reduction to take priority over the investment in jobs and growth that would make it easier to get the deficit down?
	Can the Secretary of State confirm that, as of today, he does not even know whether the activities of the green investment bank will be on or off the public balance sheet? And is it not essential that that is clarified at the earlier possible opportunity? Does he not recognise that denying early investment in fledgling green industries will hinder their ability to create and expand into new markets? Does he agree that, above all, the UK needs long-term investment in the innovative, entrepreneurial companies that have the potential to become the pace setters and global market leaders of the future?
	Does the Secretary of State recognise the risk that the available funds could easily be absorbed by major energy supply companies—companies that, relatively speaking
	at least, have access to capital—which would invest largely in the installation of established technologies, often supplied by overseas companies? Does he recognise that that risk could prevent UK-based innovators and suppliers from winning market share and developing the established technologies of the future? What assurances can be given that the bank will focus not only on the areas of activity named by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, but on the less mature technologies that remain unmentioned, such as solar and marine energy?
	There is clearly a balance to be struck between major infrastructure investment and all the activities of innovative companies, but will the Secretary of State tell us how he intends to ensure, in the legislation that will set out the green investment bank’s remit, that he will strike the right balance between those activities?
	Finally, given the huge uncertainty and inconsistency that the Government have shown over the past year, can the Business Secretary set out how he intends to create greater confidence in green industry companies about the future direction of Government policy? There was precious little about that in the Government’s growth plan, but without that market confidence none of the high hopes that we all share for the green investment bank will come to fruition.

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I ask the Secretary of State to reply, I make the point that I allowed the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) to reach his conclusion because I saw that he was getting towards it, but we cannot again have a situation in which the response to a statement is longer than the statement.

Vincent Cable: I take it that, despite the slightly carping tone of the response, the Opposition do support this proposal. It is important that they support it, because the concept of the green investment bank is that it should be an enduring institution that lasts through successive Parliaments. It is important that we have all-party support for what we are doing.
	The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) seems to be claiming credit for this policy, which leaves me with a very simple question: why, in 13 years, did Labour not do it? The demand was there and there were institutional finances looking for such an institution, but it never happened. Why did the Labour Government not do it? They did have a financial vehicle to fund infrastructure investment: the private finance initiative. The whole point about PFI was that it was off balance sheet and the debt was hidden. It was not independently assessed as the green investment bank will be, and as a result numerous institutions, including hospitals and schools, have been lumbered with debts that they cannot manage. Our proposal is a soundly based financial institution leading with equity risk capital, which is what this kind of investment requires.
	The Government present this, and I am a Business Secretary proud to lead on such an environmental initiative. The right hon. Gentleman referred to something I said earlier about carbon objectives. We must obviously strike a balance between promoting new green industries and jobs, which are absolutely crucial for growth, and taking proper account of energy-intensive industries, several of which are well represented on the Opposition Benches, such as the steel, ceramics and chemicals
	industries. Of course we must take those into account and manage the process by which the expansion of green industries takes place alongside proper regard for those industries. I am surprised that he is so insensitive to an important sector of industry that should be of concern to many of his Back Benchers.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timing of legislation. Legislation will be initiated once the state aid process has been completed, and we hope that that will take place rapidly.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about less mature technologies, and he is quite right that there is a spectrum of activities of varying degrees of risk and maturity. There are institutions, including the excellent technology strategy board, to take on early stage technologies, and there are bodies such as the Carbon Trust to deal with early stage activities. The green investment bank has a specific role and mandate for projects that are high risk, but none the less mature and ready for commercial investment.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the scale of the activity. I do not think that most people would regard £15 billion of investment as trivial, and such an undertaking by the end of this Parliament is very ambitious. He says, “Well, why don’t you just borrow more?” But that is the problem. We have an exceptionally high level of debt in relation to our GDP, and it is a painful process working it down, which is what the Government have been doing. It is frivolous and irresponsible to say that we can deal with those problems simply by borrowing more and adding to the debt.

Neil Carmichael: I welcome this excellent statement, because it describes an institution wholly appropriate to the needs of Britain, but will the green investment bank be able to support small and medium-sized businesses in a significant way? They are often the drivers of innovation.

Vincent Cable: It will be difficult to support small and medium-sized enterprises directly—but there are other mechanisms for doing so. One area of investment will be industrial energy efficiency, and through the aggregation of projects, SMEs might well be part of that.

Adrian Bailey: The CBI has expressed concern about the dangers of the Government’s overall green strategy inhibiting manufacturers’ ability to provide the necessary green infrastructure. May I seek reassurance from the Minister that he will fight resolutely on behalf of manufacturing industry to sustain that capacity to deliver in this country?

Vincent Cable: Yes I will fight, and do fight, resolutely for manufacturing industry, which of course is now seeing significant growth. It is leading this country out of recession, and the CBI has very strongly made the point to me about the need for the manufacturing sector in green industries, and the need to safeguard the industries with energy-intensive plants, too.

Henry Smith: I, too, very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. How will larger organisations be encouraged through the process to work with smaller, innovative technology companies, such as Ceres Power and Riomay in my constituency?

Vincent Cable: That complements the earlier question about how we integrate SMEs into the process. The fact is that the green investment bank will predominantly be concerned with very large-scale projects, and that is partly where the market failure lies—in mobilising large amounts of capital. In practice, however, large-scale projects can involve combinations of small-scale enterprises, and of course SMEs will also be an important part of the supply chain—particularly, for example, in offshore wind, which is a crucial dimension.

Luciana Berger: The Deputy Prime Minister, in his speech yesterday, said that the green investment bank might be used to deliver the first stages of the green deal. A couple of months ago, however, the Energy Secretary wrote to the WWF stating that he was confident that there was an appetite in the finance community to lend for the green deal, and that he had concerns about using the green investment bank for it. Will the Secretary of State outline why the policy has changed?

Vincent Cable: There has been no change to the policy. The green deal has a very sound business model, it will proceed and it will be successful. We do not rule out the possibility of the green investment bank complementing and working with its activities.

Lorely Burt: I know that my right hon. Friend said in his statement that he does not want to be prescriptive about the nature of the bank’s borrowing or structures, but will he look seriously at the recommendations of Ben Warren from Ernst and Young, who told the Environmental Audit Committee that
	“it was crucial to not only focus on big investors when looking to raise capital, but also to work on a structure that allows individual citizens to invest in the GIB”?

Vincent Cable: That may well be one of the ways in which the green investment bank will be involved in the longer run—once it is securely established. Large numbers of people will no doubt want to invest, through individual savings accounts for example, and that could well be a product that the bank eventually produces. We certainly do not rule that out, and we want to encourage creativity.

Caroline Lucas: Given that the green investment bank is being set up to promote new green technology, can the Secretary of State confirm that it will not be used to support nuclear, because nuclear is not new, because many of us do not believe it is green, and above all, because such support would clearly constitute a public subsidy?

Vincent Cable: The initial analysis suggests that nuclear power would not be an appropriate sector for the bank’s investment, but in the very long run we are not ruling out particular possibilities, including nuclear. It is not part of the bank’s immediate planning, however.

Richard Graham: Today seems to be playing an important role in Labour’s revisionist history. This morning in Westminster Hall I listened to an Opposition Member claim that Labour was the saviour of post offices—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. [ Interruption. ] Order. We are pressed for time, and questions are about the policy of the Government, not of the Opposition. I have made the point several times; I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman had heard it by now.

Andrew Bridgen: Historically, whatever services the Government decide to offer, the private sector tends to withdraw from them, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the green investment bank complements private sector investment in green technologies and does not merely replace it?

Vincent Cable: The bank will not replace such investment. The whole purpose of our extensive market analysis has been to identify the areas where the private sector is not investing and will not invest. The advisory committee is being established, we have appointed the chairman, and it will give us much more specific guidance on how to get the right balance between the commercial and environmental criteria.

Robert Flello: The ceramic industry in my city of Stoke-on-Trent will be listening and watching very carefully as the green investment bank develops, but my question is specifically about an engineering firm in my constituency that was looking to manufacture the gearing systems for refurbishing wind turbines. It had no joy from Advantage West Midlands, and it has had no joy from the local enterprise partnership, because it has no funds, so can the Secretary of State reassure me, and the firm, that the green investment bank will be on its feet quickly, and will not be so prescriptive that the company might just as well go to a moneylender, because the terms and conditions will be so tight?

Vincent Cable: I have already said that loans can start to be made from roughly April 2012. There will be substantial activity, and the firm in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency may well be a successful supplier to the industry, but if I were him I would not be too negative about the other sources of finance. The regional growth fund is entering its second tranche, and if it is a good company with a good project, and if there is a good LEP, it will be eligible for that money.

Martin Horwood: I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s announcement today—especially if the green investment bank ends up in Bristol, where it can take advantage of Gloucestershire’s expertise in financial services. Will he look positively at allowing the bank to finance, or to play a part in financing, the green deal? That would send a positive reassurance to investors in green deal businesses.

Vincent Cable: An Opposition Member has already asked me a variant of that question, and I have made it very clear that the green deal is proceeding. It is a successful business model, and we understand the mechanisms by which large-scale investment will be forthcoming, but we certainly do not rule out the possibility of the green investment bank complementing it.

Clive Efford: I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting to the end of his statement—for a minute I thought he was going to need a wind turbine
	inserted to pep him up. It is not possible to pick winners in this area, and a great deal of investment is needed in the research and development of new technologies, so will the green investment bank just pick winners or will it be involved in research and development, accepting that sometimes such projects will not come to fruition?

Vincent Cable: Any business organisation making project choices is trying to pick winners, and that is what the bank will be trying to do. It will try to get a return for the economy and for society through environmental improvements, so of course it will have to make choices and pick winners. New technologies are being developed through the technology strategy board, we have announced a couple of technology innovation centres—another will be announced later this week—and they will develop the pioneering technologies to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Business Secretary on bringing forward this proposal, and I hope that the bank will come to York and north Yorkshire. May I ask for a commitment from him—that in trying to resolve one environmental problem he does not inadvertently create another? Will he assure the House that the business and environmental cases for offshore wind turbines, in particular, will meet the strictest and most stringent conditions?

Vincent Cable: It will indeed do that. As I indicated in my statement, there is what we call a double bottom line. The projects must be commercially attractive, and we have to decide what the rate of return would be. They must be economically viable. They must also, at the same time, make an environmental contribution. Getting that trade-off will not be easy, and it will be one of the important early tasks of the bank. I will undertake to add York to the list of cities looking for such an opportunity.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome the green investment bank. Will the Secretary of State confirm, however, that the EU Commission has written to the Government expressing its concerns, under state aid rules, that the Government’s proposals in the electricity market reform for contracts for different feed-in tariffs and a floor price for carbon may constitute a subsidy for nuclear? If it has done so, will he make the letter available in the Library?

Vincent Cable: I cannot confirm that. If the information is available, I am sure we can pursue it in the proper way. As it happens, I met the Competition Commissioner last week and he did not refer to that, but he is alerted to the green investment bank state aid application, and he will deal with it professionally, I am sure.

Robert Smith: One of the crucial things for investors in the green investment bank will be certainty in understanding signals to the market. I understand that investors in bioethanol plants are uncertain as to where the renewable fuels obligation is taking them in this investment climate. Will the Government undertake to make the bank really work by ensuring that investors in that technology have certainty about their future when it comes to Government policy?

Vincent Cable: As I said, we are trying to create a stable framework—what is sometimes called a regulatory asset base—against which long-term investment decisions can be made. We have heard several references to the electricity market review and feed-in tariffs. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), is involved in the process of establishing a clear set of rules. The green investment bank will sit alongside those clear policy frameworks in order to ensure that large-scale investment takes place.

Christopher Leslie: If the Secretary of State is considering the location of the green investment bank in its ability to deliver, he must surely take seriously the bid from the city of Nottingham because of our combination of financial services and low-carbon business innovation. Will he or his officials agree to meet a delegation from Nottingham so that we can overwhelm him with our case?

Vincent Cable: As I say, we have not come to a decision on the ideal location, and we are certainly open to good, new suggestions. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in Nottingham will have to think about whether, for example, they have a sufficient concentration of project finance specialists; I am sure that they have.

Simon Hughes: I would hope that throughout the UK there will be real enthusiasm for the announcement that by 2015 there will be £18 billion of investment in green industries. Can the Secretary of State add to that enthusiasm by sharing his vision of what sector of the economy green industries may represent and the number of jobs that that will bring to Britain? In addition, our tidal and wind can be linked with projects such as the European renewable energy project and solar power from the south of Europe, thus transforming the whole of our energy economy.

Vincent Cable: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to sketch out the scale of what green industries are and can become. We estimate that some 800,000 people, perhaps more, are already employed directly in green economy-related activities, and I understand that that will expand substantially. I hope later this week, in a more wide-ranging comment, to add some more information for his purposes.

Tom Greatrex: Is it still the Government’s intention that the fossil fuel levy money sitting in a bank account in Scotland will be rolled into the green investment bank?

Vincent Cable: I did not follow fully where the hon. Gentleman was going, but, no, as I understand it that is not the intention. The £3 billion contribution from the Government is not tied to any specific source.

Michael Crockart: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, particularly his commitment to the long-standing, enduring nature of the green investment bank. May I urge him, however, to set a clear time scale for when a decision on location will be made? I fear that once the bank has been incubated in Victoria street, its location may be decided more by
	inertia than by examination of the excellent business cases that have already been given to him, such as the one from Edinburgh.

Vincent Cable: There will be a proper process, and it is important that we consider carefully all serious applications on their merits. I commend my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Edinburgh for the high level of professionalism that they have brought to bear on their application. They have met me and my departmental officials and have taken great interest in it, and I commend their approach.

Mark Durkan: I welcome the progress that is reflected in the published plans and in the statement, and I hope that we can rely on much of their promise. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the green investment bank will be open and accessible to all the devolved regions; that no project or company will be disqualified on the grounds that its project has a cross-border character, which would be natural and necessary in Northern Ireland; that nobody will be disqualified on the grounds that their project has been funded by devolved Administrations; and that such funding would not be the subject of a qualifying precondition?

Vincent Cable: The bank is a UK-wide institution that will apply in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, so I do not see any problems of that kind. As regards the cross-border aspects, the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting legal question that I will need to look at carefully.

Stephen Williams: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He mentioned future milestones in the setting up of the bank, one of which will be its location. At the risk of exposing him to a civic beauty parade from all around the Chamber, he mentioned three cities, two of which are political capital cities that already have many national institutions. Is there not a clear and compelling case for the new green investment bank to go to the green capital of the United Kingdom—the city of Bristol?

Vincent Cable: I am not sure that I am yet in a position to be a beauty parade judge, but they are all beautiful cities, including Bristol.

Nick Smith: Like other colleagues, I note that the Secretary of State is still considering where to base the green investment bank, and I see that there is a possibility of its going to Bristol. May I ask him to look across the Severn river and base the HQ in south Wales, given that investment in the Severn barrage has been stalled?

Vincent Cable: This is slightly in danger of getting out of control, but I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his nerve in pursuing it.

Barry Sheerman: May I give an unalloyed welcome to the fact that we are to have a green investment bank? It is great news. As someone who is very much involved in the third sector environmentally, the one aspect on which I would push the Secretary of State a bit further is the need for third sector co-operation. That sector has been very hard hit
	by some other Government policies. I am also a little worried by one of his previous answers when he said that small and medium-sized companies will not be eligible for much of the funding.

Vincent Cable: I did not say that they were not eligible; I referred to the fact that the initial round was likely to involve large-scale projects. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very positive comments. As for the third sector, I did not respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) about participation in the advisory board, which we will certainly reflect on. It was a helpful contribution.

William Bain: Since 2004, the US Treasury has had the facility to issue up to $2 billion in green bonds to enhance the green economy in the United States, and since 2007 the European Investment Bank has issued more than €1 billion in climate awareness bonds. Is not it a real lost opportunity that the Secretary of State has been unable to persuade the Chancellor to keep to his pre-election commitment to introduce green bonds in the United Kingdom?

Vincent Cable: As I said, there is a variety of possible ways of raising funding, one of which is obviously the capital markets. If and when the institution goes to the capital markets, the investment could well take the form of bonds marketed in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. I am sure that we should draw on those experiences.

Points of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that last Monday, 16 May, we had a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence about the military covenant. Following that, because a lot of it had been leaked to the newspapers over the weekend, I raised a point of order in which I said that
	“the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan)”
	had
	“on the record”
	given
	“quotations to The Daily Telegraph”,
	announcing the policy before doing so in the Chamber. The Under-Secretary then said, in some kind of clarification:
	“If the hon. Gentleman cares to read what was in the newspapers, he will discover that what he has said is not in fact in any way correct.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 43-44.]
	I have now read the newspapers. The Saturday edition of The  Daily Telegraph to which I referred says clearly:
	“a defence minister told The Daily Telegraph that the Government’s plans, to be announced in the House of Commons on Monday, would put the covenant ‘on a statutory basis for the first time’.”
	In case there is any doubt about who that Minister was, the article later says:
	“Andrew Robathan, the defence minister…told The Daily Telegraph…‘We are putting the military covenant on a statutory basis for the first time.’”
	It is one thing for a Minister to leak something to the national newspapers before it is announced in this House. It is quite another for a Minister to give the House a very misleading understanding of what they have done. I do not think that the words used by the Under-Secretary in the Chamber can possibly be squared with what was in the newspaper. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will ask Mr Speaker to ensure that the Under-Secretary comes back to the House to make the true situation absolutely clear.

Lindsay Hoyle: What has been said is on the record for everyone to see. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will refer the matter to Mr Speaker, and that he will look at what has been said today.

John Cryer: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, of which I have given Mr Speaker notice. Every Member of this House is doubtless aware that yesterday, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming)—I use the word honourable in its broadest possible sense—named a premiership footballer who is at the centre of the super-injunction row. A lot of people in this place and outside it find it difficult to see the exact public interest in naming that footballer, and I think that it was an act of gross opportunism by a politician on an ego trip. Can you, Mr Deputy Speaker, reiterate the traditional attitudes of the House towards such gross abuses of privilege?

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving Mr Speaker notice of his point of order. I will simply repeat what Mr Speaker said yesterday:
	“I strongly deprecate the abuse of parliamentary privilege to flout an order or score a particular point.”
	He went on:
	“It is important…that we recognise the need to temper our privilege with responsibility.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 653-654.]
	I think that that is all that needs to be said on the matter.

Autism (Quality Standards)

Motion  for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Robert Buckland: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make a referral to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to develop and publish quality standards for autism spectrum disorders; and for connected purposes.
	Autism, autism spectrum disorders and Asperger’s syndrome are terms that are increasingly entering public consciousness. The number of people who are diagnosed with those conditions is rising. That is the result of a growing awareness of the conditions and the greater specialism that is now available. However, far too many people are not having their needs met. Most Members will have had casework relating to children, young people and adults with those conditions. Such cases are usually about the difficulty that they and their families experience in accessing appropriate diagnostic services, education, health care or social care.
	I declare an interest as the parent of a child with ASD, but I speak today for all families across the country who experience difficulties in accessing services. The Bill is an attempt to plug a gap that I believe exists in the commissioning and provision of health and social care for people with autism, particularly those whose IQ is above the level of diagnosis for a learning disability. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has quality standards for conditions such as chronic kidney disease, dementia and stroke, and it is working on more as we speak. However, none of those standards will relate to autism. I am encouraged that NICE is developing three sets of guidelines relating to autism management in children and adults. I argue that the creation of an overarching quality standard would bring together those strands into one coherent approach. What would the standards look like? I am grateful to members of the all-party parliamentary group on autism and to the National Autistic Society for their work on this. I will put forward some suggestions on behalf of everybody who has been involved.
	First, people with ASD should receive care and support from appropriately trained staff who are capable of making reasonable adjustments to understand them and meet their needs. Secondly, people with suspected ASD should be referred to a specialist team. A diagnostic assessment should start within three months of the initial referral and there should be support throughout the assessment by the ASD team. Thirdly, people with ASD should be assessed for any co-existing mental health conditions. The severity of their symptoms and the degree of any associated functional impairment should be identified. Those who require additional help should be offered immediate support.
	Fourthly, people who are newly diagnosed with ASD and/or their carers should receive appropriate written and verbal information about the condition and the support options that are available locally. Fifthly and importantly, people who are newly diagnosed should be given a profile detailing their strengths, skills, impairments and needs. That should be the basis for a needs-based management plan that covers learning, communication,
	self-care and other adaptive skills, behaviour and emotional health. The plan should take full account of the family context and the particular needs in each case.
	Sixthly, people with ASD should have a community care assessment carried out by a trained assessor. Any care plan should be agreed across health and social care. If required, people with ASD should be given support to use direct payments or personal budgets. Seventhly, carers of people with ASD should be offered an assessment of their emotional, psychological and social needs and, if accepted, should receive tailored interventions identified by a care plan to address those needs. Let us not forget the carers in all this. Eighthly, there should be an ASD strategy group in each local area to help plan services for children and adults. Each group should contain representation from people with autism—the service users—as well as from mental health services, education, social care, parents, carers and the voluntary sector.
	The ninth suggestion is that the professionals working with a child with ASD who is approaching the transition to adulthood—a lot of Members will know the difficulty that young people have with that transition—should inform social services and the child about the need for a community care assessment. Adult social services should formally contact the young person and/or their carer before adulthood is reached, so that such young people get the continuity that they deserve.
	Finally, people with ASD who use child and adolescent mental health services should have a plan in place for the transition to adult mental health services. Where the referral criteria are not met, it would be good practice to signpost other sources of support.
	Why bring this proposal forward now? It is clear that whatever the precise outcome of the important reform that the NHS is undergoing, the process of commissioning health and social care services will change. That will include the process of referring quality standards proposals to NICE. I suggest that the Bill comes at precisely the right moment and that it highlights the vital importance, which is underlined by the Government’s proposals, of bringing together health and social care. That is not before time say all of us with an interest in and a passion for issues to do with autism and related conditions.
	Those who commission services for people with autism would be helped by a list of quality standards, because it would help to define best practice. It would inform GPs and other potential commissioners of the gold standard of provision for people with autism. Patients
	and service users would also be made aware of the standards that they should expect from service providers. NHS trusts and other professionals would also be helped. Maybe, just maybe, the lives of thousands of people with autism can be made better.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Ordered ,
	That Mr Robert Buckland, Roger Williams, David Mowat, Annette Brooke, Andrew Griffiths, Dr Julian Huppert, Robert Flello, Jonathan Reynolds, Damian Hinds, Justin Tomlinson, Charlotte Leslie and Nicola Blackwood present the Bill.
	Mr Robert Buckland accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill  194 .)

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify whether the House has the option to take today’s votes in an order that would facilitate the expression of Back-Bench opinion, as we will be debating Back-Bench business? In the usual course of events, a motion is not voted on until the amendments have been taken. That means that if the Government use their majority to whip through an amendment, the House will never get the opportunity to vote on the motion that the Backbench Business Committee selected for debate. Is it possible for you to ensure that the House has an opportunity to vote on the motion that was selected for debate, or are we in the hands of the Whips and those under their influence?

Lindsay Hoyle: Unfortunately, I have been told that the answer is no; those are the rules on how votes are taken. As frustrating as that may be for the hon. Member, those are the rules of the House as they stand.

Kate Hoey: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that this is a Backbench Business Committee debate and the will of the House needs to be heard, would it not be sensible for Her Majesty’s Government to accept the point that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has made and not move the amendment?

Lindsay Hoyle: As a long-serving Member, the hon. Lady is well aware that that is not a point for me to rule on, but Government Front Benchers will have heard it. There does not seem to be much movement from them to comment, so we will move on.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[28th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Eurozone Financial Assistance

Lindsay Hoyle: Mr Speaker has selected the amendment.

Mark Reckless: I beg to move,
	That this House notes with concern that UK taxpayers are potentially being made liable for bail-outs of Eurozone countries when the UK opted to remain outside the Euro and, despite agreement in May 2010 that the EU-wide European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM) of €60 billion would represent only 12 per cent. of the non-IMF contribution with the remaining €440 billion being borne by the Eurozone through the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), that the EFSM for which the UK may be held liable is in fact being drawn upon to the same or a greater extent than the EFSF; further notes that the European Scrutiny Committee has stated its view that the EFSM is legally unsound; and requires the Government to place the EFSM on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council and to vote against continued use of the EFSM unless a Eurozone-only arrangement which relieves the UK of liability under the EFSM has by then been agreed.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this debate.
	Ever since the civil war, and perhaps back to the Plantagenet era, the primary duty of this House has been to control supply, to hold the purse strings and to decide what the Executive may or may not spend on behalf of our constituents. It is not for Her Majesty’s Treasury to decide what unknowable liabilities to sign our constituents up for. It is for us, as their elected representatives, to make that decision. I ask every Member to consider that point when they cast their vote later. It is our decision, and only we stand between our constituents and the ability of others to spend their money on their behalf.
	My simple point is that it is unaffordable for this country to bail out countries that joined a currency that we chose not to join, when we ourselves are borrowing as much money as, if not more than, those very countries. We are seeing £12.5 billion of our constituents’ money—twice as much as was saved in the whole first year of the coalition Government, and £500 a household—being spent on bail-outs; and I mean “spent”, because although the Government tell us that they expect the money to be paid back, if that is so, why will the private sector not lend? Why are there rates of 10% to 17%?

Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this issue and support what he is saying. Does he agree that although bailing out Greece, Ireland or Portugal is expensive in itself, today the contagion is spreading to Spain and Italy, bail-outs for which would be absolutely prohibitive for the whole European Union? Would that not be nonsense?

Mark Reckless: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and it goes on and on. Yet it is not our problem, and it is not our currency. If we can do anything, we can save ourselves and perhaps Ireland, but we cannot save the
	euro. The eurozone countries made their decision. We advised them against it, yet they chose to create a currency without a fiscal union to back it up. It is their problem, not ours.

Andrew Tyrie: Given that the “no bail-out” clause has turned out to be completely worthless, the eurozone will need to design some type of resolution procedure for countries, in much the same way as we are trying to devise one for banks at the moment. Is it not therefore all the more important that, since we are not members of the eurozone, the UK taxpayer should have absolutely no part in the construction of that resolution procedure? We do not want to find that there are any more burdens on the UK taxpayer.

Mark Reckless: My hon. Friend is quite correct. There is talk of establishing a permanent bail-out arrangement, and we, the United Kingdom, have a veto over that. We should use that veto to relieve ourselves of all liability under a mechanism that should never have been agreed. That is what my motion proposes, and the amendment fails to do so.
	When the European financial stability mechanism was set up, we were told that there would be €60 billion in it, whereas €440 billion would be paid by the eurozone members. Yet in the case of every bail-out we find that the mechanism is used to the same level as, or even more than, the eurozone facility. We in the House and this country are being forced to pay for the mistakes of others, and only this House has the power to stand up, vote and say no.
	The whole mechanism is illegal. Let us remember Maastricht and the “no bail-out” clause that the Germans insisted on. What has happened to that? Let us remember article 122 of Lisbon, which states that the mechanism is for natural disasters or other exceptional circumstances beyond member states’ control. Did not Ireland, Portugal and Greece decide to sign up to the euro? Portugal has barely grown at all as a country since it joined the euro, and it has done next to nothing to control its spending. I am afraid there is nothing exceptional about that, and nothing beyond its control. It is just using the mechanism, to which we should have said no, to make our constituents pay for its own mistakes.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend recall that Madame Lagarde herself, the prospective head of the International Monetary Fund, said on 17 December last year on that very point:
	“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the eurozone”?
	She was being very clear and telling the truth.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) responds, may I warn him that he only has three minutes to go?

Mark Reckless: My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is quite right.I hear that that lady is a good friend of the Chancellor, but I do not believe that we should put the debtors in charge of the bank. The IMF money, too, or 5% or so of it, is our constituents’ and taxpayers’ money. We should have an emerging market candidate to run the fund, and we should not
	allow the eurozone to continue to perpetuate a French-led IMF that nods through bail-outs with no restructuring and no devaluation. The markets know, and all of us know in our hearts, that bail-outs will not work.
	The eurozone says that there will be a “soft restructuring”. In other words, when Greece, Portugal, Ireland or—who knows?—Spain cannot pay back what it has promised, the eurozone will say, “Oh, don’t worry about it, we’ll just roll it over.” In the City, they call that an extend-and-pretend policy. Such a policy was pursued in Japan for the whole of the 1990s, which then lost two decades of growth instead of dealing with the banks and recognising its insolvency. The European Central Bank should avoid that. Unless and until the ECB deals with that problem and understands that the assets that it has taken supposedly to back the loans are worth far short of what it currently assumes, the banks will not lend, because they do not know to whom it is safe to lend. The ECB should write those assets down and have that reckoning. The extend-and-pretend policy—the patching up and bailing out, and the throwing of good money after bad—is destined to fail.
	Why are we supporting a currency that we very wisely did not join, after warning exactly what would happen? I ask Members of this House to stand up for their constituents. We should require—yes, require—the Treasury to vote against the use of the bail-out mechanism. If the EU does not agree to that, we should require the Treasury to use our veto over the permanent bail-out mechanism until we are extracted and removed from all liability. We should never have been liable for that mechanism. We know that it is unlawful and that it is not for our currency.
	It is right that we stand up for our taxpayers and our constituents, who look to us as Members of this House to do so. They do not look to us to seek permission from those on the Treasury Bench, or to urge them to do something rather than require them to do something. Surely as Members of the House we are more than that. Surely our country is more than a star on somebody else’s flag. I urge all hon. Members to vote no to the Government-sponsored amendment.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is a great pleasure to speak in this important debate and to support the motion of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). I hope very much to have the opportunity to vote for the motion as it stands rather than in amended form.
	Today of all days is important because the crisis and contagion in the eurozone is spreading. As reported in the Financial Times and other journals, there are serious problems in Spain, where there is youth unemployment of 41%, and where the economy is in serious crisis, and even in Italy. Those are major economies, not small countries. If we are dragged into a mechanism to save the eurozone even in one of the smaller countries, we will be throwing good money after bad, as the hon. Gentleman said. Bail-outs have been required for Greece and Ireland, and there might be one for Portugal, but those are relatively small countries in EU terms. Spain and Italy are much larger, and bail-outs for them would be prohibitive.
	As I have said in the Chamber several times before, it is time to urge the EU to accept the recreation of national currencies for countries that cannot sustain membership of the eurozone. As I and many others have argued, strong currencies derive from strong economies, not the other way around. The Deutschmark was a strong currency because the German economy was strong. Weak economies cannot cope over time when a strong currency is thrust upon them. The best example of that was Argentina, which chose mistakenly to link its currency formally to the US dollar. For 10 years, it struggled, and its economy was almost destroyed before it bailed out and recreated its own currency—not before billions of its dollars had gone abroad. The Argentine economy, which had been one of the strongest on South America, became very weak, simply because it adopted a strong currency, and someone else’s currency at that. Adopting a strong currency that an economy cannot sustain is a foolish decision.
	The right to flex a currency as of need is a vital component of economic management. Indeed, at Bretton Woods in the 1940s, it was argued that depreciations and appreciations could be appropriate for different countries, even though a stable exchange rate system was agreed after the second world war.

Edward Leigh: Is it not strange that the Government are backing so strongly the candidacy of Madame Lagarde for the position of head of the International Monetary Fund, given that that lady is part of a ruling European elite, and that she is on record as wanting to go on bailing out the euro? Should we not be more independent in supporting a really good, tough candidate for that important post?

Kelvin Hopkins: I have not always agreed with our former Prime Minister, but I agreed very strongly with his position on the euro. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) might take a more sensible approach to those things, should he be appointed. I think he is something of an outsider at the moment, but Madame Lagarde has not been appointed yet. Let us hope that he still has a chance of the job.
	As the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood said, Britain was wise to stay out of the euro. Because of that, we can flex our currency when needs must. Of course, during and after the crisis, we wisely depreciated our currency. Perhaps a bit more depreciation will help manufacturing and our economy. Countries that have their own currency, such as ours, can also choose their interest rates. Two vital components of any economic management system—the ability to flex the currency and control of interest rates—are given away when countries join a single currency. Even beyond that, there are fiscal policy controls. Countries would do well to retain all the components of economic management if they want to succeed.
	When countries do well individually, they can do well collectively. Destroying the economies of EU member states or other countries does not help us in any way. Getting them back into some sort of order by permitting, encouraging or helping them to recreate their currencies, and finding an appropriate parity and interest rate for that currency, so that they can manage their economies for their needs, would raise demand for our goods. The
	shock absorber effect of different currencies would, over time—a fairly short time, I believe—make the economies of Europe work better singly and collectively. Therefore, the recreation of those currencies is in our interest.

Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend have any idea why this Government are so keen on bailing out the euro when that was certainly not in the Conservative manifesto? Is this a case of the Liberal tail wagging the Conservative dog?

Kelvin Hopkins: That is one mystery that will no doubt be revealed when the 30-year rule is applied. We found out some interesting things about what happened in the 1970s under the Jim Callaghan Government recently, so perhaps we will know what is happening now in 30 years’ time. I know no more than my hon. Friend about why the Government do not take a more sensible line, as is proposed in the motion.

Matthew Hancock: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Does he share my frustration that a Labour Chancellor signed us up to a mechanism over which we now have no veto?

Kelvin Hopkins: Throughout the period of the Labour Government, I put the views that I have put in this debate. I hope that I had some influence, but in the end the Government decide what they must. They will not necessarily do what Back Benchers such as me suggest. Nevertheless, I am on record as writing and speaking on such things many times in the past.
	We must bring this crisis to a head. The way to do that is to say, “No more bail-outs. Let’s start recreating national currencies.” I have said that directly to some of our friends in Ireland, when members of the European Scrutiny have met Irish politicians.

Mark Reckless: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that subject to a request from Ireland and to the protection of UK depositors as against the ECB, we should consider extending our currency to allow Ireland to work with us? Under sterling, we could treat Ireland on an entirely equal basis.

Kelvin Hopkins: Ireland is a very special case—it is our next-door neighbour and we are Ireland’s major trading partner. Effectively, the Irish would do very well to join the sterling zone rather than the eurozone. That would mean their recreating the punt and choosing the value of it. I would like us to do a lot more to help our Irish colleagues, not simply because I have a large number of Irish people in my constituency, but because that would be a comradely and brotherly thing to do for a nation with which we have had great links for many centuries.
	I once again express my support for the motion.

Jo Johnson: It is critical that we put into perspective UK taxpayers’ exposure to the bail-out mechanism. No Government Member relishes having to put the faith or the credit of Her Majesty’s Treasury behind the bail-outs of profligate peripheral eurozone countries, especially at a time of austerity at
	home, but the coalition Government inherited this situation. The temporary bail-out mechanism, which runs until 2013, was agreed on 10 May 2010 by European Finance Ministers at ECOFIN—after the general election, but before the coalition Government were formed. As the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) admitted in Parliament, the Chancellor opposed the mechanism at the time, as was clearly recorded in
	Hansard
	on 15 December 2010.
	[Interruption.]
	Any Labour Members in doubt about that can verify it for themselves.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend consider the answer I received from Ministers this morning, and reflect that although the Chancellor opposed the mechanism, the Government had every reason then to challenge it in the European Court? Why did they not do so?

Jo Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have been led to understand that the Government took the position that there was no strong legal case to support any such challenge.
	None the less, it sticks in the craw of many Government Members to be in this position and, like them, I have my doubts about whether the mechanism is being applied in exceptional circumstances beyond member states’ control, which is the test for triggering the deployment of financial assistance powers under article 122(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Government bond yields in the eurozone periphery are trading at the level they are in some countries because of the reckless management of public finances and the political gridlock in those countries, and because of backsliding on long overdue structural reform. In Greece’s case, Government bond yields are trading at about 20% because of Athens’s lack of progress towards meeting the pledges it made last year as part of the EU-International Monetary Fund bail-out. That is a case in point.
	Painful though it was for the Government to be saddled by the outgoing Labour Administration with an indirect contingent liability through their involuntary participation in the mechanism, the truth is that our overall exposure is a rounding error when compared with that facing Germany and other northern European countries in the core euro area. The debts of the eurozone periphery are being progressively socialised by European Central Bank financing operations that could, in time, be seen as the forerunner of an effective eurozone bond. In the meantime, the €60 billion mechanism is just part of a far larger package of measures to preserve financial stability in the EU to which we have no exposure, except indirectly through our share in the IMF. We are on the hook for a share of €60 billion out of an overall package of €750 billion. Our share, which is about 12.5% of that €60 billion, is just €7.5 billion, or 1% of the €750 billion package.
	We do not wish to throw away that 1% lightly, of course, but happily, for that exposure to crystallise, all the countries that have thus far subscribed to the mechanism would have to default in totality. IMF data on the history of sovereign defaults around the world suggest that that is highly unlikely. Even in the unlikely event of a domino series of defaults across the countries that have subscribed to the mechanism, it would be extraordinary for there to be a 100% default rate. The pattern of defaults around the world suggests that losses from default are normally between 25% and 35% of the total losses to which countries or investors have exposure.

Steven Baker: I would say gently to my hon. Friend that only a few years ago the banking crisis was not foreseen, and the same people who did not foresee that are still giving us advice. We are probably in far worse trouble than is generally accepted.

Jo Johnson: My hon. Friend is perhaps right to caution me. It never pays to be too optimistic.
	More importantly, the coalition Government, who came into power in May 2010, deserve to be congratulated not only on limiting our exposure to the temporary funds—we are on the hook for just one, not both of them—but on successfully capping our exposure. We have been kept out of the €440 billion European financial stabilisation facility, as well as what will be the permanent successor vehicle, the European stability mechanism, which, as mentioned, is due to come into existence in 2013.
	That said, we would be wrong to kid ourselves that Britain can shield itself completely from the affairs of the eurozone, and I would suggest that Schadenfreude, in the Chamber or elsewhere, at the turmoil in the euro fringe might be short-sighted. First, our banks remain fragile. People who read the Financial Times will know that 14 British banks and building societies were this morning downgraded by Moody’s, and there were particularly negative outlooks for Barclays and HSBC. The UK banking sector’s exposure to the so-called PIIG economies—Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Greece—alone amounts to about £211 billion, which is the equivalent of about 4.7% of UK bank assets, according to Capital Economics. UK banks can ill afford fresh write-downs that would force them to raise expensive new funds at a difficult time in the capital markets, and a further leg-down in the eurozone financial crisis would certainly not help the Government in their laudable efforts, under Project Merlin, to push the banks to lend more and at reasonable terms to capital-starved businesses in the UK.
	The second transmission channel of pain in the eurozone will come in the form of reduced lending to UK consumers and businesses by eurozone periphery banks located in the UK. Irish banks account for about 3% of household loans in the UK, and about 7% of corporate loans. Spanish banks play an even more important role. Through
	Santander, which owns Abbey, Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley, Spain accounts for 14% of household loans in the UK. If troubles at home force these eurozone banks to rein back their lending, especially overseas, credit conditions in the UK could clearly start to worsen again. We should think hard about that before expressing any Schadenfreude at what is happening on the continent.
	Furthermore, distress will be felt at home through the trade channel. At a time when domestic sources of growth are under pressure and few and far between, the UK’s trade links with continental Europe are of pivotal importance. Although Spain and Portugal might be less significant as trading partners than Ireland, the PIIG economies together account for 14% of UK exports, compared with Germany’s 9% and the 16% of UK exports that go to Asia. A wave of defaults, or at the very least a considerable weakening of the euro, would not only hit demand in these countries, but damage UK export competitiveness—a linchpin of the Government’s economic strategy.
	The Government are right to limit our financial exposure to future bail-out mechanisms, and need to be congratulated on having done so successfully, but it should go without saying that we still have much at stake in the success of these future bail-out mechanisms. We cannot wash our hands of them. The health of the UK banking system, the extent to which the UK economy is dependent on credit extended to UK companies by eurozone banks and the UK’s own need to earn a living from exports make it abundantly in the UK’s interests to wish our European partners every success in tackling the crisis through future eurozone-only arrangements. Anyone taking pleasure in the discomfort of our European partners might be in for a nasty surprise.

ROYAL ASSENT

Lindsay Hoyle: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Measures:
	Care of Cathedrals Measure 2011
	Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure 2011
	Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Debate resumed.

Jim Shannon: I rise to support the motion before the House and to add some comments to the debate. I want to give a couple of examples—fishermen and the farming industry—where the EU is creating more hassle than can be justified. I am of the school of thought that we should make the best of a bad job, and on many occasions we have to do that. The EU, along with the way in which it is run, is most certainly a bad job, yet at present we are in it whether we want it or not. It therefore falls on this House, MEPs and another place to do our best to hold the EU to account as far as possible for the events that take place over in Brussels. We have an opportunity today to debate that and vote on it.
	It is clear that the European financial stabilisation mechanism is not fit for purpose; owing to this, the UK could be held liable as a member state. On 9 May 2010, the European financial stability facility was created, and it is a special purpose vehicle agreed by 16 members of the eurozone and aimed at preserving financial stability in Europe by providing financial assistance to eurozone states in economic difficulty. Thus far, we are not at all involved, but no to the euro meant no to the EFSF. The tricky part came with the notion that the facility may be combined with loans of up to €60 billion from the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which is again reliant on funds raised by the European Commission using the EU budget as collateral, and up to €250 billion from the IMF, all to secure a safety net of €750 billion.
	If there is no financial operation in activity, the EFSF would close down after three years, on 30 June 2013. If there is a financial operation in activity—which of course there is—the facility would exist until its last obligation had been fully repaid. There has indeed been activity, and a good deal of it involving the EFSM, despite the fact that it should not have been involved to the extent that it had an equal if not greater share of the bail-outs. The purpose of the European financial stabilisation mechanism is to provide an emergency funding programme that is reliant on funds raised on the financial markets and guaranteed by the European Commission using the European Union budget as collateral. I want to give some examples of where things have gone pear-shaped, to use that terminology.
	It seems abundantly clear that, as a non-eurozone member, we can be held accountable only for the EFSM, yet for some inexplicable reason it was this funding that bailed Ireland out—to the tune of €5 billion—as opposed to the eurozone funding, which should have borne the brunt. We are neighbours of Ireland, and I do not wish to be harsh. Of course we want to help out where we can, as a healthy Irish economy could benefit the Northern Ireland economy, owing to the shared land border. However, it is hard to grow this sense of neighbourliness when we see the fund enabling Ireland to undercut us on corporation tax, which subsequently encourages business investment in the Republic as opposed to Northern Ireland, or when we see that it has enabled fuel duty to be reduced, which has also taken flight business away from the Province. So, we bail them out and then they use that to our disadvantage. Why should we doubly
	lose out—through access to European funds, along with increased competition for our business in Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom—when the eurozone fund should have been responsible for bailing Ireland out all along?

Ian Davidson: That point is of significance to Scotland as well, because the pressure from Northern Ireland to reduce its corporation tax to compete with the Irish Republic is being replicated in Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea why this Government are using British taxpayers’ money to fund an opportunity for the Irish Republic to undercut us on corporation tax in that way and thereby cannibalise British revenues?

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman makes an appropriate intervention. We in Northern Ireland certainly do bear the brunt of that, and we feel the pain more than most, as does Scotland. Perhaps when the Minister responds we will get an idea of exactly why that has happened.
	The second example is from Iceland—there is more than one cloud hanging over Iceland, by the way—and the second referendum there. Iceland rejected a proposed deal to repay €4 billion that Britain and Holland spent in 2008 to reimburse savers hit when Iceland’s banks collapsed. Meanwhile, I am hearing complaints from my constituents about the amount of fish that fishermen can catch and the number of days that they can work being restricted by EU legislation, as opposed to the Icelandic raiders—they are certainly not an ice hockey team—who are sweeping in, despite Euro-protests, and fishing mackerel that belong to our fishermen. Those are just two simple examples of the failure of the bail-out system in Europe. It is passed the time that this be brought to a head and we ensure fairness for all in Europe.
	The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has stated that the legality of the EFSM is called into question by the current wording of the treaties, which must be changed accordingly. That is exactly the issue that we are trying to address. Therefore, the answer is very clear: use the upcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council to vote against the continued use of the EFSM unless a eurozone-only arrangement that relieves the UK of liability under the EFSM has been agreed.
	For far too long we have slavishly followed the dictates of Europe, throwing pound after pound into that deep hole that is Brussels and awaiting some kind of recompense for doing things the right way. For too long we have watched other countries prosper—and not too far away from us, either—with bail-out funding, while we cut funding to schools, hospitals and infrastructure in order to remain solvent and claw our way back to a sound financial footing. Everyone in the Chamber today will be able to give examples of that from their constituencies. For too long we have paid in while watching our farmers and fishermen flounder under the weight of European dictates, at the same time as we watch other nations flout the very same rules that our officials seem to have an almost evangelical zeal in enforcing. Indeed, we have been fined £60 million in Northern Ireland for mistakes in bureaucracy and forms that have been filled in.
	We need to assert ourselves by saying to the EU that we will no longer be Europe’s nodding dog, making do with a pat on the head every now and again, as if that is
	okay. We more than pay our way. Others must be held to the dictates that we adhere to. That should start with the matter of this funding and how it is used. I fully support the motion and urge every Member here today—those who embrace Europe and those who oppose it alike—to state that from now on we will make a better job of what is currently a bad job and demand our rights as a member state, beginning with the right to exclude ourselves from the euro without paying for it through the back door.

Stephen Williams: The background to this debate is the extreme financial turbulence that took place all around the European Union—and, indeed, around the world—in 2008. Since then, the vast majority of EU member states have become stable. They are growing and have deficit reduction plans in place. It is also important to recognise—I am quite surprised that no one from the Government Benches has said this yet—that the UK has not needed assistance from the IMF nor from the European financial stability mechanism, which we theoretically could have called on from our fellow EU member states, or indeed any bilateral assistance, precisely because the coalition Government have put in place a realistic deficit reduction plan to put our finances on to an even keel. However, other EU member states are still struggling and have needed that international assistance—I refer, of course, to Greece, Portugal and Ireland. Today’s debate is concerned with European Union assistance, but we should remember that many fellow member states have also needed IMF support and bilateral loans, from us and other member states.

Graham Stringer: Is not the reason why Greece, Portugal and Ireland have needed money that they cannot alter their exchange rates or control their interest rates because they are in the euro? Some of those countries are cutting even faster than this Government, and it is not helping. The answer to those countries’ problems is to get out of the euro and return to their old currencies.

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I suspect that I may be alone in the Chamber—at least on this side of the Chamber—in being for the euro. I believe that Britain could have benefited from joining back in 1999, but I none the less recognise that the coalition agreement contains a strong statement on how that is simply not up for discussion during the course of this Parliament. I would therefore agree to differ with the hon. Gentleman. Surely one of the reasons why the three states that he mentioned are unable to deliver deficit reduction is not just their membership of the euro, but the fact that their Governments have not been as willing as this Government to take the necessary painful medicine to put themselves back on an even keel.
	We have, of course, made bilateral loans as well, recognising that, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) said earlier, it is in our own selfish national interest to support our fellow EU member states. Many of those points were made last year in the debates on the Loans to Ireland Act 2010. One statistic, which I thought was implausible when I first heard it—I
	have now heard it so many times that it must be true—is that Ireland is more significant to our trade than China, India and Brazil, so it is indeed in our national interest to continue to support Ireland.

Henry Smith: My hon. Friend talks about our bilateral and multilateral arrangements. Surely it is in this country’s interest to be flexible and not to get locked into multilateral arrangements, but to have the freedom to make bilateral arrangements when it is in our national interest to do so.

Stephen Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right to say that we need flexibility. Because we are not in the euro, we are not a participant in the far greater funding of the facility. I think that the figure involved is €400 billion. Our exposure is therefore quite limited.
	That leads me on to my next point. The loan to Ireland involves about €7 billion, which is roughly equivalent to the maximum theoretical exposure of the United Kingdom to the loans that we have participated in under the European financial stability mechanism. So what is the cost to the UK? I have already mentioned our IMF and bilateral loan contributions, which we make irrespective of our EU or euro membership. We are outside the EFSM, as I have said, and our EFSM contribution is restricted to the UK share of the European Union budget, which is roughly 12.5%. Our total theoretical exposure is therefore about €7.5 billion, which is roughly equivalent to the bilateral loan that we have decided, of our own volition, to give to our close friend and neighbour, Ireland.
	Our contribution to those loans—I emphasise that they are loans—is at risk only if there is a default on the part of the member states receiving them. It is the expectation, when loans are made in the ordinary course of business, and certainly between nation states, that they will be repaid without default, and that they will be repaid with interest. If Ireland and Portugal repay those loans in a timely manner and with interest—the interest rate is quite a hefty one—it will be important to ensure that the interest is credited back to the United Kingdom.
	A real cost would be incurred if we did not support our fellow EU member states, which are, after all, our closest trading partners. It would simply not be in the UK’s national interest to watch the eurozone fail and even break up, as I suspect some of my coalition colleagues would like it to do. The resulting massive instability among our closest trading partners on our doorstep would not be in our national interest. I plead with the ministerial team to make the case more strongly on behalf of the Government that UK assistance at this time is in the British national interest, and that it is not merely the result of some philosophical commitment to the European Union, whether by the Liberal Democrats—whom I heard being blamed earlier—or by anyone else. Indeed, if we were not making those contributions via the European financial stability mechanism, it is possible that we would be making higher bilateral contributions or having a higher call on our funds because of our treaty obligations relating to the IMF. It is also right, however, that any such support should be temporary, and that, from 2013, the eurozone should be able to wash its own face and support itself through the proposed new European stability mechanism. It will then be up to
	Britain to decide whether it wishes to give bilateral assistance, when it is in our national interest to support our closest friends and neighbours.

Kate Hoey: I want to contribute to the debate because it is often implied in the media and elsewhere that very few Labour Members are against what is happening in Europe. It is important to point out that millions of Labour voters would support the motion, and would like to see my party take an even stronger view on this issue.
	I do not know the details of who signed up to what and when, but I am clear that if it was our Chancellor who did so, we should not have signed up to these arrangements. The new Government coming in should certainly have made it clear that they were a new Government and that they would look at the matter again. I appreciate that they are a coalition, but this should have had a high priority in the coalition agreement.

Graham Stringer: I am following what my hon. Friend says, and I agree with her. The previous Government were out of tune with the electorate on Europe, as are this Government. Would it not be good to have a national debate on these issues, and a referendum on whether we should be in or out of the European Union?

Kate Hoey: Yes. I am a supporter of the People’s Pledge campaign, and any other campaign that I see on a referendum. I would like those campaigns to work together more.
	Even in the House today, we are going to end up being unable to have a clear vote on this issue because of the way in which the procedure works and because of the way in which the Government—like previous Governments—are in a nice, cosy little group with all the pro-Europeans to ensure that we never have a real vote on these matters. I am not sure whether all those Members who have signed up to the Government’s amendment knew what they were signing up to. I cannot believe that they do not support the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). Looking at the amendment, we see that they accept the motion up to and including the point that the EFSM is “legally unsound”. If something is legally unsound, the Government should automatically oppose it. I am sure that the European Union will be quivering when it hears that the Government’s amendment proposes that the Government
	“raise the issue of the EFSM at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council; and supports any measures which would lead to an agreement for a Eurozone-only arrangement.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Anne Main: rose—

Kate Hoey: I will not give way again.
	Does anyone in the House really think that our Government would be listened to if they went along to the Council of Ministers and said that they were very concerned about this issue? They have not even managed to get Parliament to give a clear signal about what it thinks. They have fudged the vote today so that it will be pretty meaningless. This fudging on Europe goes on
	all the time among the cosy establishment, and it makes people angry and frustrated, not only in the House but out in the country.
	I recently asked the Foreign Secretary
	“if he will have discussions at EU level on reducing the funding spent by the EU on publicity campaigns.”
	This matter arose because the European Union has decided to put by even more of our money to ensure that ordinary people throughout the EU are told how wonderful the EU is. We are spending money directly on European Union propaganda. The answer came back from the Minister for Europe, and the first bit sounds great:
	“While it is important for institutions such as the EU to communicate effectively…spend on this should be efficient, affordable and proportional. Funding levels for the EU to communicate its work publicly, as for all other EU activities, will be decided within the negotiations on the EU 2012 Budget. With those negotiations, this Government are seeking substantial reductions in spend and greater efficiency across all areas of the Budget.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 448W.]
	Once again, fine words. The previous Government said exactly the same thing, but nothing ever changed. Nothing relating to the European Union ever changes. The sums of money involved never go down. We never pay less; we pay more and more.
	With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, I believe that it is time for us to have this debate out there in the country. Let us stop being afraid of our constituents’ views, and listen to what many people out there want to say. This Government need to accept what the previous Government would never accept—namely, that we are here to stand up for our constituents and our country on this issue. It is about time that we started to say no to Europe, and to mean it.

William Cash: The Government amendment—they have not tabled it in their own name, but that is what it is, to a great extent—reflects badly on the integrity of the coalition. It has nothing whatever to do with the national interest. It also says a great deal about a commitment to Liberal Democrat ideology, and it is primarily about numbers. The Liberal Democrats, and certain elements in the Conservative party at a very high level, are quite prepared to allow further European integration. There are alternatives that would allow us to renegotiate the treaties and/or to say no, but they are simply not doing so.
	Indeed, only a few days ago, the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that the object of the coalition was to stabilise the economy. We understand that. The problem is that this is about numbers, not about principles or policy. There are many people in the Conservative party, outside and inside the House, who know that the arguments we are seeking to address in a reasonable fashion are in the interests of the country. There is no question about that; the press outside believe it as well. The bottom line is that those of us who have relentlessly pursued the issue of the eurozone bail-out and have tabled many questions have invariably received what could reasonably be described as somewhat evasive answers.
	Why should the British taxpayer or British hospitals and schools in our constituencies in any way underwrite what goes on in Portugal, or indeed any other country in the eurozone, particularly in times of austerity? It is
	nothing to do with the question, as suggested on a number of occasions, of qualified majority voting. This is completely contrary to the assertion made in reply to me today by the Financial Secretary. Article 122 is not compatible with the treaty and cannot possibly be used to support the European financial stability mechanism. Indeed, in their acquiescence, as shown in the amendment, the Government accept that the position is legally unsound. By saying that, they completely undermine their position. The Government know it and everyone knows it: it is not compatible with the treaty, and the Minister is wrong.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful legal point. Does he agree that what these states in trouble need is a work-out, not a bail-out? We do not give alcoholics more drink; we cure the alcoholism. We should not give the over-borrower more borrowing.

William Cash: I could not agree more, and a course of Alcoholics Anonymous would not be out of place.
	It is not just the European Scrutiny Committee that said the position was legally unsound or unlawful. Madame Lagarde herself, the prospective head of the IMF, said on this issue on 17 December:
	“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the eurozone.”
	This is a stitch-up of the British people to maintain the so-called solidarity for further integration of a failing European project. That is what lies at the heart of the matter.
	Why are people protesting and rioting all over Europe —in Madrid, Greece, Italy and the list is growing? What is not growing is the European economy and the reason is that the sort of policies needed—here and in all the other countries—to engender growth to deal with the deficit that the Government rightly say we have to address are impossible to achieve without generating the growth that is needed by repealing legislative burdens and generating policies that the integrationists in Europe simply refuse to allow. I would go further and say that the coalition in this country cannot achieve growth simply because the Liberal Democrats, as part of the coalition, have silenced the Prime Minister’s promise to repatriate burdens on business. It is called 56 votes and the keys to No. 10.

Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman might have heard, as I did, the Liberal part of the coalition talking clearly about what might happen “if” these loans are repaid, which suggests some ambiguity and concern within the coalition Government about whether the loans will be repaid. He will also recall that when the Conservatives were in opposition, they opposed the bail-out of Northern Rock. What has changed between then and now?

William Cash: Very simply, we now have a new coalition Government who have been seeking to achieve a reduction in the deficit, but they are not doing the accompanying things that are required in respect of the failing European project. That is the key problem. There are young people throughout Europe—and, for that matter, in this
	country—who simply cannot get jobs because companies will not take them on as a result of European employment regulations and because the deficit in the public sector cannot be stabilised without reasonable tax revenues from the small business community, which is being deliberately destroyed by the refusal to repeal the burdens that strangle it.
	In the meantime, Germany has had unit labour costs of a mere 2% on average over the last 10 years, whereas the average for the rest of the European member states is between 25% and 30%. It is an impossible situation, making it impossible for Europe—this entity that the integrationists believe in—to be able to compete with the BRIC countries. Germany invests in cheaper labour markets in Europe, with 67% of all its trade being with Europe, while 45% of all European trade with China is German.
	The reality is that what we are debating today is symptomatic of a failure in the coalition Government’s strategy. We are not going to get out of this problem—I say this in all sincerity and in the great hope that people will listen at last—as long as we go on with this failing project. We will not get out of the mess. Today’s debate is an opportunity to get the issue straight. As Michael Stürmer, the chief correspondent of Die Welt argued, the dream is over and the Maastricht treaty has to be revised, but the coalition has no will to do so. The European bail-out of Portugal is a symptom of this deeper problem.

Claire Perry: Given my hon. Friend’s very pessimistic view of the outlook for the eurozone, which many of us share, does he not feel like giving just a tiny cheer that, thanks to the Chancellor’s efforts last December, we will take no further part in a permanent bail-out mechanism for Europe?

William Cash: I did not say anything adverse about it at the time other than that the opportunity was not taken, despite advice I tried to give, to use the treaty opportunity to say to other member states that we would not agree to the treaty and would veto it unless we were taken out of the EFSM; we could then have brought forward the arrangements currently proposed for 2013. That proposition was eminently reasonable, eminently possible and €440 billion was available under the facility, which is in operation until 2013. In other words, the whole EFSM issue pivots on vanity and a determination not to unravel something that cries out for unravelling. It is not just; it is not right; it is completely irrational.
	There are going to be further and deeper riots and protests. Worse still, I believe that the Government are contributing towards instability throughout Europe while claiming that within the time frame extending to 2013, bailing out the German and French banks—we should remember that that is what lies at the root of the problem—as well as Portugal and Greece will achieve stability. It will not. The argument is not only wrong, but totally—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Austin Mitchell: I largely agree with the argument about the incompatibility of eurozone countries, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)
	outlined, although I do not agree with his defence of the Government. If we pay tribute to anybody it should be to the previous Chancellor and then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) who, against great opposition from the Liberal Democrats and from sections of the Labour party, kept us out of the euro and avoided the consequences that have fallen on the eurozone states that are now in need of support and finance.
	I do not think that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) should feel uncomfortable about his lonely defence of the euro as he sits there like an Amplex advert on two empty Benches—because nobody wants to sit with somebody who is going to defend the euro in his kind of fashion—as the Liberal party policy has always been, “My euro right or wrong.” I can well remember, as can many others, the exchange rate mechanism crisis. Just as the ERM was about to collapse, there were the Liberals chanting, “Move to the narrower bands now” in unison with a lemming-like folly, which the hon. Gentleman demonstrated again today. He should not worry about this peculiar position; he should say with triumph that the Liberal Democrats have persuaded the coalition into accepting and financing these bail-outs. It is not a small sum. He mentioned a liability for £7.5 billion—this from a Government who are cutting Sure Start children’s centres and police budgets and who cannot afford anything for beneficiaries in this country, yet who are prepared to back a bail-out that could cost us £7.5 billion.
	To have persuaded the cautious Conservatives, who have always been rather sceptical about Europe, to accept that position must be a triumph for the Liberal Democrats, in which I think they should rejoice. It is a demonstration of the impossibility of the eurozone’s working. What we are being asked to do today is pay for the consequences of the fact that it could never have worked because it brings together incompatible economies. It brings together the southern economies, which are frankly uncompetitive, and many of which are close to defaulting in any case, and the powerful German economy, where inflation is kept very low by agreement between the two sections of industry, continuous investment and continuous improvement.
	The southern economies, which have higher rates of inflation and lower rates of productivity, can never keep up. The gap therefore widens, and Germany comes more and more to dominate the European economy, to a point at which the others must deflate to clear the deficits caused by their balance of trade with Germany. That is the incompatibility with which we are dealing, and that is the cause of the problems of the southern states in which we are being asked to involve ourselves—although we kept out of the euro, in the face of some derision from the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, liberal opinion in the country as a whole.
	We kept out, so why should we be responsible for the failures implicit in the euro? There are only two possibilities for the countries that are now failing and needing help or the ability to default. They can deflate, which they are being asked to do to a degree that is impossible for their electors to accept, or they can get someone to write off their debts, a strategy mentioned by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). They cannot do what France and Italy did for many years when they became uncompetitive and their balance of payments deficits built up, and simply devalue. Such
	action was precluded first by the European exchange rate mechanism, which broke up because it became impossible, and it is certainly precluded now by the euro. These failing countries can have no recourse to either reducing interest rates or accepting adjustments to the exchange rate, as this country has done, and they have therefore moved towards a crisis.
	I cannot conceive why we—having kept out of the euro and warned of the consequences of joining the euro, and having drawn attention to what was implicit in a system that brought together incompatible states with different rates of productivity and competitiveness and with no central mechanism to redistribute or help them with their difficulties—should be asked to contribute to the bail-outs, and I therefore strongly support the motion. I cannot see what the sob sisters who tabled the amendment have to offer by saying, “Let us talk about it later.” Let us talk about it now, because the House must be the master of its own destinies and the country’s destinies.
	This cannot be left to a Government who, in European matters, are always facing the threat of the tar baby. One contact with the euro, and countries are dragged in; one contact with Europe, and they are dragged endlessly into further and further commitments to a line that is impossible to hold. We should say in the Chamber today, “We cannot hold this line. We will not help to hold this line. It is not our problem.”

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are running out of time very quickly, and I want to enable as many Members as possible to speak. We need to hear about the amendment, so I now call Chris Heaton-Harris. If there are fewer interventions and Members do not use all their allotted time, we shall do very well and get much lower down the list.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from ‘unsound’ to the end of the Question and add:
	‘urges the Government to raise the issue of the EFSM at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council; and supports any measures which would lead to an agreement for a Eurozone-only arrangement.’.
	As you have made amply clear, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not have much time. I therefore intend to confine my remarks to the subjects raised in my amendment and to the politics behind it.
	The motion argues that there is no legal base for making EU money available for bail-outs. It questions the idea that the natural disasters clause can be used to justify using EU funds to pay the countries concerned. Let me say at the outset that the amendment does not touch the very important line in the original motion that states that the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member,
	“has stated its view that the EFSM is legally unsound.”
	Let me now deal with some of the politics of today, which were observed by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

David Nuttall: Was not that line left in the motion because it is a fact—which there is no point in denying—that the European Scrutiny Committee stated that the European financial stability mechanism was legally unsound?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I shall come to that point directly.
	Members on both sides of the House know that the Government would not have accepted the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), and that if we were to vote on the original text it would be probably be defeated, and the House would be left without a view on this matter. My amendment, which I should like to think has a good chance of being passed, would enable the House to adopt the words of the European Scrutiny Committee.
	I believe that the legality of the EFSM, and indeed that of the European financial stability facility—the EFSF—has been questioned in relation to the EU treaty’s “no bail-out” clause, which states that the EU and member states
	“shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of”
	other member states.

Anne Main: I appreciate that my hon. Friend was trying to be helpful, but his amendment seems deeply unhelpful to those who wanted the strength of the original motion to be negated, and to have been able to vote on it.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I will say more about the politics later in my speech. In any event, I believe that if either my amendment or the original motion is passed, the House of Commons will be the first member state Parliament to question formally the legality of the stability mechanism.
	The remaining part of my amendment involves a fairly academic argument. Does any Member in the House truly believe that, with the Greek economy running out of cash, market fears that the eurozone contagion will spread and reveal itself at the heart of the Spanish and Italian economies, and the continuing problems in Ireland and Portugal, this matter was not going to be up-front and central at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council? I should like to think that those problems are not only the first item on the agenda for such meetings, but being discussed every day throughout the Governments of Europe.
	Bail-outs have become what they were always going to be: politically toxic, not only for those who provide the cash—the local election results in Bremen at the weekend underlined that—but, much more, for the Governments of the countries receiving the money, who have to introduce economic measures that are politically unpalatable to the people, as so many Spanish socialists found last weekend. Whatever senior advisers of Governments across Europe may think, the markets have already decided—and I consider it to be a matter of fact—that the Greek bail-out has not worked and will be renegotiated.
	What I believe my hon. Friend for the Member Rochester and Strood is after is a vote that will prevent us from providing any more money for these bail-outs through the EFSM. Alas, although the UK could vote
	against any proposal presented—and I should like to think that it would—the simple fact is that because of the disastrous advice given to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the consequent actions that he took at meetings on 9 and 10 May last year as the previous Government were leaving office, the UK entered the mechanism. Moreover, the Council decides on these matters now, and will do so in the future, by means of qualified majority voting.

George Freeman: Does my hon. Friend not agree that when the Conservatives were last in office they established a firm veto in precisely this context? That veto was given away in 2001 by the Labour party, and the present Government are now being forced to implement a decision that was sneaked through by Labour in the dying days of its Government.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Absolutely—and let me make it perfectly clear that, thanks to what Labour did a year ago as it was leaving office, the EU cannot veto the grant of an EU loan or credit line extended via the European financial stability mechanism.

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman can say what he likes about why we cannot do this and cannot do that, but does he not accept that the people of this country do not care which party did what? They want us to veto this now, and if we cannot do so, we should simply not pay.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I should love to agree with the hon. Lady on that—so I will.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is there anything to prevent us from requiring the European Court of Justice to rule on whether this use of the mechanism is legal?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I honestly do not think so.
	In the most basic terms, voting for the original motion will not mean that we are no longer liable to contribute to bail-outs via the EFSM. Worse than that—as I have said—because the Government signalled they were not likely to accept the original motion, it would in all likelihood have fallen, and therefore, far from this House having put its foot down, it would not have had a view at all. My amendment merely recognises that reality. It does not build up false hope that we can simply stop being involved in these matters, but it does send a message to Government that I hope will be reflected in the ongoing debates on them: that this House wants there to be a eurozone-only arrangement in the future.
	Too regularly in this place and elsewhere, those of us who question various aspects of our relationship with the European Union march our supporters to the top of the hill only to find that we are outnumbered and outfoxed, and are then valiantly and gloriously defeated. We need to get real.

Richard Drax: Perhaps we are led to the top of the hill and then let down by parliamentarians who do not have the guts to stand up for their country.

Chris Heaton-Harris: My hon. Friend could, perhaps, say that, but he would obviously have to have a good 10-year track record of actually standing up for this country in a different Parliament somewhere else.
	The economics of our time is proving us right. It is time we changed tactics, and time we learned from the past. Let us win the arguments we can, bank the result and push forward. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have noted the feeling of the House on this matter. I would like to think they understand that we expect the Government to play all the cards they are dealt in negotiations with our European partners, and I would remind them of how much cross-party support they have for their negotiations on the next EU financial framework for 2014-2020. We have a veto on that matter, and are expecting great things.
	My endgame is to spare the UK the costs of these bail-outs, leaving them as a proper matter for the euroland countries. I intend to press this amendment—tabled in my name and those of more than 50 other Members—to the vote.

Ian Davidson: The wider question we need to address is why it appears that this Government are consistently going soft on the European Union. When they were elected, the impression was given that they were going to be much tougher on Europe than the previous Government had been, and I welcomed that different position, on that issue if on no other. I welcomed the fact that the Conservatives gave the impression they were going to stand up to Europe much more than the previous Government, and that they were going to seek opportunities not only to repatriate powers but to reduce the amount of money we give to the EU and to pursue all possible ways to clip the European Commission’s wings. Why, therefore, has it come to pass that they seem to be simply acquiescing in so much that goes on in the EU?
	I do not for a moment accept that the current Government should be allowed to hide behind the playground argument that a big boy did it and then ran away. I accept that the previous Government were not without fault in this matter, but simply to say that they did it so there is absolutely nothing whatever we can do about it now is not acceptable. To their credit politically, this Government have said in respect of a whole number of policy areas that they wish to reverse the previous Government’s line, and they are taking steps to do so. Where they believe it is important, they have taken steps to undo the previous Government’s work—and I oppose what they have done—yet in this area they seem unwilling to do so. I simply do not understand that, unless they have struck a secret deal with the Liberals whereby the Liberal tail is wagging the Conservative dog.
	Today’s debate appears to be largely a row among Tory Eurosceptics, with the provisional wing arguing against the official wing. I cannot accept that people I have heard speaking in a Eurosceptic fashion on other issues seriously believe that the Brussels bureaucrats are going to be terrified by the prospect of the British Government raising the issue—I can just see them running off into the bars to have a stiff drink in fear lest this issue be raised! Goodness me, if the drafters of this amendment had been serious they might have said that they urged the Government to “Stamp their foot on the floor if they do not get their way,” or “Write rude words
	on the toilet wall if nobody pays any attention,” because that would have much the same impact. This is a bit like a child in the classroom threatening to hold their breath until they are sick unless teacher gives them an apple. It is weak and miserable, and smacks of the Yosser Hughes phrase, “Gissa job.”
	Those who drafted and signed the amendment have been far too easily bought off by the Government Whips. Perhaps some among them are deluded, but perhaps the others have set their price too low. If Members show our party Whips that we are prepared to be resolute, even though they might have told us that their current offer—or bribe—is the only one available, they will ultimately find another that might be more to our liking.
	We must recognise that the eurozone’s problems are economic manifestations of political problems. The eurozone—its creation and membership—is clearly a political construct, and the admission of Greece was politically, rather than economically, decided. I think we all know that the Greeks lied about their economy in order to get into the eurozone. The problems that have now arisen have not come out of a clear blue sky; not only were they predictable, they were predicted. It was predicted that these problems would arise. Therefore, those who are now running about like headless chickens pretending it is all the fault of bad snow, leaves on the line, sunspots and other events that could not possibly have been foreseen, are doing themselves and this House a disservice. We must recognise that these are political issues that have to be handled in a political fashion.
	I recognise that we have an economic interest in the well-being of the eurozone, but the Liberal position seems to be that because this is a political construct they wish to support, we have to keep shovelling in money regardless of how much it costs. I agree with those who say that we have spent enough and we must spend no more. I certainly agree with the position of the previous speaker, who seemed to be saying that we are looking for great things from this Government in terms of freezing or reducing the overall level of the EU budget. This debate should be a prelude to that argument that we must have. We should be taking a robust and vigorous line on this, in order to ensure that there are no concessions on the EU budget.
	I will vote with whoever I think is most extreme on this matter. It seems to me that that is the only way we can gain Europe’s attention. Simply threatening to stamp our feet and indicate our displeasure will be brushed aside, as will simply acquiescing in the Government Whips’ bidding. This is an issue on which we must vote extremist, so that the UK Independence party does not come and get many of the Members on the Government Benches.

Douglas Carswell: We are told that the Government’s priority is to cut the deficit, and rightly so—but why, therefore, are we assuming the vast liabilities of other countries? Having struggled for the past year to cut £6.2 billion from our public spending, why do we sign up to bail-out commitments twice as great, all in order to bail out a currency we chose not to join? We have been told that the bail-outs are to help our friends, but since when do we help a friend in debt by pressing upon them a high-interest loan? A year of bail-outs has not removed the debt burden from our neighbours and friends; it has merely increased it.
	We have endlessly been told that by bailing out the countries in question we are rescuing the people of Ireland, Portugal and elsewhere. I am not sure that the people of those countries quite see those bail-outs as such a salvation. Like the people of Argentina a decade ago, they increasingly recognise that their economic well-being is being sacrificed by politicians in pursuit of grandiose dreams of monetary union. We have heard how these bail-outs will buy time, but time for what? Are they buying time for the bondholders to pass the weight of their losses on to the shoulders of taxpayers? Ministers have sought to reassure us that UK liabilities for the bail-outs will be limited until 2013, but we need to look at the sheer volume of debt that needs to be rolled over in the affected countries in the next 18 months —limiting our liabilities until 2013 is little comfort to those who care to look at the maths.
	We have been told that Britain will get this money back, yet at the very moment that Greece hovers on default we proceed to lend £4.2 billion to Portugal. We have also been told that there is something unavoidable about the bail-outs. It is supposedly a deal struck by the former Chancellor at the ECOFIN meeting on 8 May last year, but I can find no evidence to suggest that we sought to challenge it in the ECOFIN meeting in the week that followed. If Ministers were really reluctant participants in the stabilisation mechanism, why did the Economic Secretary to the Treasury write on 18 July last year:
	“While these decisions were taken by the previous government, this Government judges them to be an appropriate response to the crisis.”?
	That does not sit entirely comfortably with the idea of Government reluctance to join in the bail-outs. If this Government were reluctant about the deal that they claim they inherited, why are we promoting the senior official behind it to be the next ambassador to Brussels?
	We have sat here for too long listening to what Ministers tell us. We have been fed too many bogus assurances and too many reasons that have turned out to be excuses. The bail-outs are not only ruinous and quite possibly illegal; they are indefensible. They mean that although we may not be in the euro as a currency union, we have been dragged into it as a debt union. It is not enough simply to listen to further assurances given from the Dispatch Box as Ministers regurgitate what officials permit them to say. This House needs to instruct the Government to act. It is not time for spoiler amendments designed to stop short of instructing the Government to act. It is not time for carefully calibrated wordplay intended to create the illusion of opposition to the bail-out when such opposition does not exist. There is only one way to vote today to halt the haemorrhaging of our cash. I urge colleagues to support the motion in the Lobby, and to reject the Whips’ efforts to water it down with this disgraceful amendment.

Michael Connarty: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), because he talked about something that should be discussed more in this place: the plight of the people who are suffering problems because of their own Government’s mismanagement. My Eurosceptic colleagues
	on the Labour Benches are still against the common market—they are not really against the European Union as such—whereas the Eurosceptics on the Government Benches are, honourably, against the EU as a project. As they know, the problem I have with this whole debate is that all these manifestations have nothing to do with our being in the eurozone; they are to do with the failure of Governments to use the money that they had available, their own economic powers and the money made available to them by the EU in their period of transition into the EU to do the right things and invest correctly in the skills of their people and in the supply side of their economy, rather than spending the money on large economic projects.
	For example, when we go on a cheap holiday to Portugal we can drive on excellent motorways directly from the airport to the place where we will lie in the sun, and the hotels and large boulevards will have been paid for by EU money. However, the young people of that country fail to get a decent education, proper skills and university places. The reality of these countries is that they have under-invested in their own people. That criticism cannot be levelled at the UK.
	The eurozone offers these countries a way out of their dilemma that, as a socialist, I do not particularly find attractive; they will be asked to cut further their budgets, which should be invested in their social infrastructure and the supply side of their economy. That will cause them great harm, but that offer will be made to them by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and so on because it is the capitalist model. That model says, “When you are in trouble, slash your budgets in the public sector.” Now, where have I heard that before? I have heard it from those on the Government Front Bench and from every Government Back Bencher. They have been told that every time they get up they should use the mantra about how they have to slash and burn the economy of this country—thus denying the young people of this country the chance to look for a better future—because of the problem of debt.
	That situation will be the consequence for Greece, Portugal and Ireland. It is what is happening in Ireland, and the young people in Spain are worried that it will happen to them. That country is a good example of a place where major infrastructure projects have been financed by the EU and the supply side of the economy has been run down. I have met many young people in Spain who say, “It was easy to leave school at 16 and get a job building houses, but nobody can afford to buy them now. It was good money, the sun was shining and everything was going to be fine.” Suddenly, these people find that they have no skills, no jobs and no future.

John Redwood: rose—

Michael Connarty: I will give way in a moment.
	Everything I am discussing is the consequence of the things that the Governments of these countries did; this was not about the EU being in existence and not about their being members of the eurozone. These things were done by those Governments. The offer is that the IMF, the World Bank and the eurozone countries, mainly, will bail out those countries.

Peter Lilley: rose —

Michael Connarty: I am about to give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). A small part of the bail-out will be a fund, to which we have signed up, that will give a loan to those countries to help them to get over this unattractive prospect of having to face down their own people and cut their own services because of the lack of good Government management, so that they can be bailed out.

John Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not see that these countries are locked into a currency at a rate that makes them completely uncompetitive, which is why they have mass unemployment and why lending them money does not get them out of the mess?

Michael Connarty: I do not see that. What the right hon. Gentleman says may be a good indicator of where this debate is coming from. This is not about the European mechanism; this is about wanting to destroy the euro, to see it bust and to see it fail. If that is what it is about, people should stand up and say so; they should not lie to the people of the UK or mislead them by saying that it is about something else. People should be told the truth. I know that some Labour Members would certainly like to see the European monetary project and the euro completely collapse. If that is the agenda of Members on the Government Benches, they should say so.
	The prospect I was describing is not one that I find attractive. In the modern world economy we clearly need to have a large trade bloc, probably united in some way around a monetary discipline, that faces down the problems coming from the United States of America, which is in the most unbelievable debt to the rest of the world. That country is run on the basis of its economy always being indebted to other countries. What will come from China and from Africa? That is part of this whole issue, and I hope that one day we will have the courage to move into that area, but what we are talking about is a very small loan of £4 billion, which will come back to the people of this country eventually when these countries are resettled in a new economic environment.
	We hear hon. Members go on and on as if they are doing something wonderful in defending the UK, but they are not. We are talking about “beggar your neighbour” politics here and I am not prepared to vote for that. I applaud the Government for being honest and sincere about the fact that this European project either collapses or it is supported by all of us in different ways. I believe that the interest of the people of the UK lies in maintaining the eurozone and the euro, and helping countries when they fall into indebtedness. I hope that the Government will persuade hon. Members to reject the proposals before them.

Margot James: I wish to preface my remarks by acknowledging the hard work and bitter battles engaged in by so many members of my party, several of whom are in the Chamber today, that resulted in the freedom that our country enjoys in not being part of the euro. That the euro has proved such a disastrous policy for members of the eurozone is evident to all. The improvements to our trade balances and the growth in our exports this year would not have been possible without the devaluation of sterling. The recovery of our manufacturing sector and the stabilisation of employment
	figures have been facilitated by the low interest rates that the UK, unconstrained by membership of the euro, has been free to pursue.
	I share the view, in principle, that as we are not part of the eurozone we should not be bound by its bail-out commitments. That principle has, I believe, been upheld by our Government, but our Government cannot undo the commitments set in stone by the previous Government. The die was cast at the ECOFIN meeting last May when the UK agreed to the creation of the €60 billion European financial stability mechanism. That placed an obligation on the UK to underwrite emergency loans to crisis-hit member states.

William Cash: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend’s flow, but it was open to the Government to challenge the issue before the European Court and they did not do so. It was open to them to say that they would veto the treaty unless we had an unravelling of the EFSM, but they chose not to do so. They went for integration, not for dealing with the situation.

Margot James: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I shall proceed to make the point that it is no good dwelling on what our Government should or should not have done and whether the former Chancellor should have committed the UK to the EFSM. The point is that the Labour Government signed up to the Nice treaty way back and gave away our veto on the costly European bail-out funds. The decision to establish the EFSM was therefore subject to qualified majority voting and would have been passed. I am not convinced that there is any basis in law to challenge that decision.
	The other question raised by the motion concerns whether the loans granted under the EFSM are being granted correctly given the requirement that they should be made in conjunction with the IMF and the other much larger European financial stability facility, in which Britain, thanks to our Government, has no obligation. Under the terms of the proposed loan to Portugal, those three sources of finance share the commitment equally. If there is evidence that the EFSM is bearing a disproportionate load compared with the other two sources of finance, the Government should raise that at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council. I cannot see any argument with that.
	I contend that the situation facing Europe is so dire and potentially calamitous that we might well look back at this time and conclude that being up for a proportion of the loans distributed by just the EFSM, commensurate with our share of the European budget, was the least of our problems. The Government are to be congratulated on securing a complete withdrawal from Britain’s liability from 2013 and a very tight cap on anything we might have to underwrite between now and then—something akin to just 1% or 2% of the potential total bail-out loan facilities that might be called on by the eurozone countries. I will therefore support the amendment to the motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris).

Claire Perry: I speak with some trepidation from the depths of the Maastricht maestros on the Government Benches. If I may echo the point
	made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), it is a tribute to many people, surrounding me today and not in the House, that we are no longer part of the euro and that we have been able to establish a healthy Euroscepticism both in opposition and since we came into government.
	Let me go back in history to see how we reached this sorry state of affairs. Many Members will remember the debates around the time of the Nice treaty in 2001. Indeed, there are Ministers on our Benches today who urged the Government of the time in the strongest possible terms not to sign up to the treaty as they believed it would give away any future veto on bail-out mechanisms. We were assured at that time by the then Minister for Europe that article 103 made it clear that there would be no bailing out of member states, whether that meant Britain or any other member state. I question whether the Minister for Europe at that point knew what was being done.
	In May 2010, the acting Chancellor of the Exchequer signed Britain’s commitment to the temporary European financial stability mechanism. Our total commitment is 12.5% of the putative total of €60 billion—€7.5 billion, a substantial sum. Later, I shall address what that means for hard-pressed British taxpayers. First, let me move the timeline further forward one step to December 2010. As has been said several times, the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that Britain would play no further role in a permanent European bail-out facility and also fought for and had implemented a number of stringent requirements for draw-downs from the existing facility.
	What will this facility cost the taxpayer? As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) said earlier, it is a contingent liability. A number of things must happen before there is any cash bail-out. The entire thing has to go belly up and the countries all have to default. Given that our ranking on this debt is pari passu with the facilities put in place by the IMF, we will have a superior credit position and will be paid first in the unlikely event that there is a partial or full default. It is not a gift or a grant but a contingent liability of €7.5 billion, of which approximately €1.2 billion has been put into the facility to date. The suggestions we often hear from Members on the Government Benches that hard-pressed taxpayers will see further cuts to public services or will not see the schools, hospitals or road repairs that they have been promised are simply fiction. It is not the case.
	This amount is a proportion of the EU budget and the budget is agreed for this year, so the liability is capped at this level. There is no further liability under the facility. What is the “so what” of this point? It is my belief that the action of this Government’s Chancellor has stopped Britain further sleepwalking into handouts, bail-outs, gifts or grants to the European Union. This fund is a eurozone experiment about which we have many concerns and I share the concerns that have been eloquently raised by Government Members about the long-term future direction of countries that are hamstrung by the tightness of their currency conditions and the overall problems with their economies.
	A Conservative Chancellor argued for tough conditions and pari passu rating with IMF debt for this facility, the only facility in which we have involvement. If hon.
	Members consider the conditions under which a country can access the facility, they will see that extremely tight conditions must be met and plans must be made. Although the situation is not ideal, the Government have done far more than the previous Government to put a stop to such developments—in fact, they have done the opposite of what that Government did for 13 years. The point that has been made about fighting to ensure that there is equal draw-down from the facility is right and I believe that the amendment also calls for that.
	I urge Members on both sides of the House to stop this Eurosceptic scaremongering, to focus on the facts of the debate and to ensure that we collectively never again sign our country up to the sort of bail-out mechanisms and removal of vetoes with which the previous Government left us.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Andrea Leadsom. You have two minutes before the Front-Bench wind-ups.

Andrea Leadsom: I stand here as a big fan of Europe but a big enemy of the European Union, and I want to share a few of my passions with you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I want to share my anger at the Opposition for their failure to give us the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that they promised. I also want to share my fury at the former Chancellor for signing us up to the EFSM that has caused so many problems—the reason we are having this debate. Finally, I would like to share my gratitude to the former Prime Minister for not taking us into the euro.
	I want to spend a moment talking about our friends the Europeans who find themselves in an extraordinarily difficult position. At the moment, 10-year Government bonds in Portugal are trading at around 64 cents in the euro, while in Ireland they are trading at around 66. In Greece they are trading at around 51—that is about 51 cents in the euro for Greek 10-year Government bonds—which basically means that when our European friends have to lend them money, as they will undoubtedly have to do, it will effectively be half a gift and half a loan. We in this country are extraordinarily lucky that our Front Benchers have enabled us to withdraw entirely from the bail-out mechanism from June 2013. We should praise the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for arranging matters so that we will not, over the longer term, have to suffer the price that will undoubtedly be the case for our European friends.

Christopher Leslie: May I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) for securing this important debate? This is one of those occasions that make me think that there are not just two parties in the coalition.
	We need to clarify some of the history to this issue because I get the impression that certain hon. Members are labouring under a false set of impressions about the European financial stabilisation mechanism. Of course there were the ECOFIN meetings of 9 and 10 May at which the EFSM was agreed to as part of the package of measures to maintain financial stability across Europe.
	It was against that backdrop that my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, consulted both the current Chancellor and the Business Secretary, and cross-party consensus had been gained. Those are not my words but those of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The explanatory memorandum that she signed on 15 July 2010 in her own fair hand—Justine Greening, Economic Secretary—says those words:
	“cross-party consensus had been gained.”
	I know it is convenient for Ministers and some hon. Members to rewrite history and to give a partial account of what happened and about these important facts, but there it is in writing. [ Interruption. ] If hon. Members want to dispute the words of their honourable colleague on the Front Bench I am happy to give way to them.

William Cash: rose —

Christopher Leslie: In a moment. In a letter of 18 July 2010 to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, to whom I shall give way in a moment, the Economic Secretary also said, very helpfully, that
	“this Government judges”
	the EFSM
	“to be an appropriate response to the crisis.”
	So the official voice of the Government, according to what the Economic Secretary has written in her own fair hand, was that there was a consensus approach during the transitional period following the general election and that the current Government judged the EFSM to be an appropriate response to the crisis.

William Cash: Does the shadow Minister accept that the date on which that particular statement was made, 15 July 2010, was four days after the expiry of the date on which a challenge to the European Court could have been made? Furthermore, does he accept that since then the Government have insisted that they oppose the proposal of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Christopher Leslie: That is an extremely illuminating fact and it would be perfectly legitimate for Members on the Government side, perhaps in private meetings elsewhere, to ask a few more searching questions about what exactly their Front Benchers have been doing in their name. Either the Minister who signed the memorandum was wrong—perhaps she was misled in her understanding or she and her officials were ignorant of the facts—or perhaps she was actually speaking the truth but was subsequently slapped down by the Chancellor.

Jo Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I will not because I have only a few minutes left.
	The situation has changed markedly since last May. The circumstances under which the EFSM was then agreed have altered, casting doubt on whether it is being used appropriately, as many hon. Members have said. Because of the various weaknesses shown by the current Administration in Europe, we have ended up increasingly paying more than our fair share in relation to the EFSM facility, especially as time and again the junior EFSM fund in the bail-out package has ended up
	shouldering up to a third of the bail-out costs, as some hon. Members have pointed out. We have found that the agreement in May regarding the EFSM sum of €60 billion would represent only 12% of the non-IMF contribution, with the remaining €440 billion being borne by the wider eurozone fund. The British liability for that was going to be only 12.5%, but the proportion contributed from the EU-wide EFSM to the Irish bail-out was greater than the eurozone proportion. The Portuguese bail-out was hardly an improvement, with one third coming from the EFSF, one third from the EFSM and another third from the IMF.
	The Minister must explain to the House why the EFSM, which makes up only 12% of the non-IMF contribution, is being drawn upon to the same extent as or more than the EFSF. That forms a crucial part of the motion tabled by Back Benchers. The Minister is under an obligation at least to say why we are using the EFSM to such a high degree. That is incredibly important. It has been in the gift of Ministers to answer that question, but so far they have neglected to do so.
	The EFSM was supposed to be a temporary mechanism all along. The failure of the Government to push forward with a permanent mechanism, despite opportunities to do so, is an abandonment of UK interests. The temporary emergency EFSM was only ever meant to be a short-lived interim arrangement. We should have been moving on as quickly as possible to a permanent eurozone-only mechanism. Why has the Chancellor failed to press his European colleagues to sort out a permanent eurozone-only fund more urgently?
	The Chancellor attended an ECOFIN meeting on 18 May. The Financial Secretary attended ECOFIN on 8 June last year, the Chancellor on 13 July, the Chancellor again on 7 September and the Financial Secretary again on 30 September, yet the press releases from each of those ECOFIN meetings suggest that not once did Ministers raise the issue of pressing forward with that permanent arrangement. Can the Minister explain why not?

Ian Davidson: The shadow Minister is rightly attacking the Government for being weak and vacillating. Will he tell us what bold, straightforward and clear position he is urging us to take on the vote?

Christopher Leslie: I am happy to do that. Unfortunately, the wording of the motion refers to the legality of the EFSM, and I do not think the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), would have acted illegally to sign up to it. I accept that that is a small point, but it is for that reason that we will abstain today.
	We will have to revisit the issue time and again. It is hugely important that hon. Members understand the situation. We have not yet seen any occasion on which Ministers have raised the subject of moving to the permanent arrangement as swiftly as they can. They claim that they are responsible for having secured a commitment to move to a permanent arrangement in 2013. The temporary arrangements were always going to expire in 2013 anyway. So much for the famous victories claimed by the Prime Minister, the Minister and other hon. Members.
	Too often we have an empty chair at the European table. Only a few weeks ago, on 6 May, Britain was excluded again from a meeting that took place in
	Luxembourg—the empty-chair approach was very evident when ECB officials met the Finance Ministers of Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Greece. Will the Minister say whether there was an active decision by the Treasury to continue to take an empty-seat policy, or were we simply not invited? We see in the
	Financial Times
	that Swedish officials are concerned that the Prime Minister is not pressing harder to prevent key decisions from being made only among eurozone members. Will the Minister say what we are doing to stop being sidelined at that European level?
	We know very well that that temporary fund was needed. We recognise that it was part of a concerted pan-European action, standing together against the global forces that threatened the bond market with contagion. That is especially the case now in the eurozone. We have to acknowledge that we have trading partners in Europe and it is in our interest to support their continued economic stability, but Britain has already paid its fair share in the stabilisation process in the case of Ireland and Portugal. The time has come for a stronger voice with real influence in Europe to ensure that British interests are properly served, which must mean a swifter move to a permanent eurozone-only bail-out mechanism.
	The fund was always due to expire in 2013. That was not Ministers’ doing; it was the original design. We know that Ministers were involved in the cross-party consensus during the transition from the previous Government to the present one. Ministers cannot wriggle out of their responsibility now in relation to the EFSM. The Government are on extremely shaky ground and even their natural allies are questioning the coalition’s leadership. The issue will no doubt return on another day.

Mark Hoban: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on securing the debate. I will start by setting out our view, which is that responsibility for sorting out the problems of the euro area ultimately rests with euro area Governments. We are not members of the euro area, so it is not our responsibility to deal with all its problems. However, no one should be under any misapprehension about the importance of the euro area to the UK economy.
	A strong euro area means a growing market for our goods and services. A weak euro area puts at risk jobs and businesses in our constituencies, as my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) and for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) noted in their contributions. More than 40% of UK exports are to the euro area, and we know, as has been repeated ad nauseam, that we export more goods and services to Ireland than we send to Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. We have a clear interest in ensuring that the problems in the euro area are resolved and that the right mechanisms are in place to do so, but it is not our responsibility to sort them out and it is right, as the amendment makes clear, for us to find a permanent solution that does not require us to contribute to this.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Hoban: If my right hon. Friend will be patient with me, I want to respond to some of the important points raised by a number of Members who have contributed to the debate. If I have time at the end, I will take interventions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood said that taxpayers had contributed £12.5 billion to bail out euro area states, but that is simply not the case. Let me explain why. The European financial stability mechanism is funded by the European Commission borrowing from capital markets, and it is only in the event that a beneficiary member state defaults that the EU budget, and so the UK, will be called upon to contribute. The UK does not fund the EFSM, which is a contingent liability. Not a single pound of taxpayers’ money has gone into the EFSM. On Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) has said, we have made a loan, not a gift or a grant, and we expect to get our money back. Not a penny of the money that we have saved through spending cuts has been used to make that loan.
	Let me go back to the events of a year ago. Europe faced a crisis, with concerns about the stability of Greece, and in the May ECOFIN meeting the EFSM and the EFSF were created. They were created at the height of the Greek crisis, in exceptionally turbulent conditions, before the Government took office. Markets were increasingly questioning the EU’s response to the situation. Indeed, there were fears about the stability of the entire euro area and the risk of contagion was real and dangerous. European Finance Ministers decided to create a broader package to restore confidence and stability. ECOFIN agreed to establish the EFSM and at the same time euro area Finance Ministers agreed to create the much bigger EFSF, which is backed entirely by euro area countries and does not create any liability for the UK.
	It is worth reminding hon. Members that, although the Greek crisis triggered the creation of the new mechanism, the EFSM was not used by Greece. The Greek rescue package was financed by the IMF and a series of bilateral loans between individual euro area member states and the Greek Government.
	The EFSM was agreed at ECOFIN by qualified majority voting and before this Government took office, and Cabinet Office protocol was followed throughout. At the time, in a conversation with his predecessor, the current Chancellor made his views on the EFSM clear and cautioned against committing the UK to proposals that would have a lasting effect on the UK’s public finances. Members need not take my words for it; the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) gave his recollection of the conversation to the House on 15 December 2010:
	“I discussed with the Chancellor what we should do about the financial stability mechanism. He had his reservations and stated very clearly that he was against deploying it”.—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 954.]
	That exactly matches the account given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Christopher Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Hoban: No. As I said earlier, I want to make some progress on the matter.
	My right hon. Friend was also clear that, in the days prior to the formation of the coalition, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West was still the Chancellor
	of the Exchequer, representing the UK in a dynamic negotiating environment, and it was for him to reach that decision.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) quoted an extract from an explanatory memorandum, and yes there was consensus between the parties about the process, but not about the outcome—as the former Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his statement to the House in December. It was a matter for the previous Chancellor to decide, and he was the man occupying the office at the time.
	Some of my hon. Friends have today articulated concerns about the use of article 122. The EFSM was created following agreement by a qualified majority of member states at the ECOFIN meeting on 9 May 2010, and the terms of the mechanism are set out in an EU Council regulation. It is based on article 122 and states:
	“Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional circumstances beyond its control, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance to the Member State concerned.”
	The Council decided that in those circumstances those criteria applied.
	Several hon. Members have raised the issue of article 125 of the treaty, the so-called “no bail-out” clause, but article 125 does not preclude member states from providing loans to one another, and, as evidence of that, the EU’s balance of payments facility has already provided medium-term financial assistance to a number of member states.
	Over the past year, we have had to deal with the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government and the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we have made sure that the permanent arrangements to sort out the euro area are the ultimate responsibility of euro area member states.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that his goal at last December’s European Council, where he secured two significant victories for the UK. First, he made sure that article 122 could not be used for euro area bail-outs in the future. Secondly, he ensured that the UK would not have to contribute to the European stabilisation mechanism, the permanent mechanism that will replace the EFSM and the EFSF. As the Prime Minister said, we have a good “belt and braces” approach—a no need, no use approach.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Hoban: If my hon. Friend allows me to continue for a few minutes longer, I may be able to take some interventions.
	We ensured that the recitals—the preamble—to the decision by Heads of State and of Government at the March European Council stated that article 122
	“will no longer be needed”
	and “should not be used” to ensure financial stability for the whole euro area once the permanent mechanism is in place.
	In shaping the debate about the ESM, we had clear priorities. First, we had to ensure that there was no transfer of powers from the UK to the EU. We would never have accepted such a transfer, so the treaty change applies only to euro area member states, and only euro
	area member countries have to contribute to the rescue of other euro area countries. There is no transfer of power, competence or, indeed, funds from the UK to Brussels under that treaty change, but that judgment will not be for Ministers alone.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Hoban: I have two minutes left to conclude my remarks and to respond to the very detailed questions that hon. Members on both sides have raised, so I should like to continue to do that.
	The treaty change was agreed at the Council in March and will have to be ratified according to the process set out in the European Union Bill. Ministers will need to make a statement explaining why the treaty change does not transfer power or competence from the UK to Brussels, and Parliament will need to pass primary legislation before the UK can ratify that change.

William Cash: One last time?

Mark Hoban: I will give way to my hon. Friend—briefly.

William Cash: On the Minister’s own terms, it is absolutely clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was against those arrangements, so why in that two-month period did the Government not challenge them in the European Court of Justice?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend and his Committee have a particular view on the legality of the arrangements, but as I have said there was a clear view that article 122 could be used in those circumstances.
	Although we have had to live with the decisions of the past and the EFSM, we have fought to free our nation from the constraints of those decisions in the future. We will not have to contribute towards a European rescue of another euro area member state once the permanent ESM comes into force.
	I believe that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) captures the essence of our position. As a consequence of the action taken by the previous Government, we are part of the EFSM. This Government have had to ensure that we are outside the scope of the permanent mechanism. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already delivered that commitment at the European Council in December. I hope that my hon. Friends recognise that the action we have taken has freed the UK from the obligation to take part in future bail-outs of euro area member states.

Mark Reckless: So the Treasury agrees that this is unlawful, but it is not going to do anything about it.
	In the debate, it was suggested that these bail-outs were a rounding error. My constituents do not believe that £500 per household is a rounding error. It was also suggested that perhaps these moneys are going to be paid back and there will not be defaults. Well, if Members believe that, why do they not invest their own money rather than that of their constituents? My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said that it would be possible to get a return of 50% or 100%. Does not that suggest that we will not be getting our money back?
	Today Members face a choice. If they believe that it is sufficient to urge the Government to raise the issue, then vote yes to the amendment regrettably tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). If they believe that we need to put a stop to these bail-outs and say, “Enough is enough, it is our money, we did not join your currency, and we want our money back”, then vote no to the amendment. I am disappointed to hear that Opposition Members will not be joining us in the Lobby on this occasion. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) put his position honourably; perhaps one day he will have a leader who will lead. For now, however, the position is that these bail-outs continue and our constituents’ money is being thrown away—good money after bad.
	This is an opportunity for Members of this House to stand up, to look our constituents in the eye, and to say that we voted no to the bail-outs. Please vote no to the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 267, Noes 46.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes with concern that UK taxpayers are potentially being made liable for bail-outs of Eurozone countries when the UK opted to remain outside the Euro and, despite agreement in May 2010 that the EU-wide European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM) of €60 billion would represent only 12 per cent. of the non-IMF contribution with the remaining €440 billion being borne by the Eurozone through the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), that the EFSM for which the UK may be held liable is in fact being drawn upon to the same or a greater extent than the EFSF; further notes that the European Scrutiny Committee has stated its view that the EFSM is legally unsound; urges the Government to raise the issue of the EFSM at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council; and supports any measures which would lead to an agreement for a Eurozone-only arrangement.

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I put it to you that the Backbench Business Committee is in fact not being allowed to operate as was clearly originally intended when it was established? Because the motion was amended, the Committee was unable to allow the House to vote on the motion that it had selected for debate. What advice can you give to the House on how that matter might be rectified so that in future, as on Opposition days, the motion is voted on before the amendment is taken? What advice can you give to enable that to happen in future?

Lindsay Hoyle: I recognise that there is a lot of frustration at the way the motion was dealt with today. However, things have been carried out in order. I am sure that the Leader of the House will reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s comments and think about them, but I am also sure that he will speak to the Committee to see whether there is a way forward for everybody. Hopefully, some amiable agreement can be reached in future, if that is the desire of the Committee.

Ian Davidson: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does that not demonstrate quite clearly that this set of Government Whips is just as bad as the previous one?

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that non-point of order.

Spring Adjournment

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind the House that we will now have a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches right across the piece.

Peter Bone: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
	I move the motion on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. It uses the Hollobone method.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), I have been asked by Mr Speaker to remind him of his ruling yesterday, when he said:
	“I strongly deprecate the abuse of parliamentary privilege to flout an order or score a particular point…It is important…that we recognise the need to temper our privilege with responsibility.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 653-654.]
	I trust the hon. Gentleman will not test the patience of the Chair today.

JUSTICE

John Hemming: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Hon. Members will be aware that I have a long-time concern about secrecy in court processes, which was highlighted in the story in The Guardian today. We have no true freedom of speech when people can be jailed for complaining about their problems. This country seems to have a penchant for covering up problems that would be discussed openly in others.
	Florence Bellone, a Belgian journalist, recorded an interview with Carol Hughes and Lucille O’Regan in Ireland, which was broadcast on RTBF in Belgium. A copy was placed on YouTube, but access in the UK is now blocked as a result of what YouTube calls a “government request”. What can be so frightening about that interview that people in the UK are not allowed to see it, but it can be broadcast in Belgium?
	The policy of international websites varies. The Twitter account containing the names of lots of people subject to super-injunctions is still there, and will remain there for some time, yet newspapers in the UK are not allowed to refer to it by name. It is clear that in the UK people are now recognising the oppressive nature of court secrecy in this country. For instance, I wrote and released a song about this in 2008, the lyrics of which would have been in contempt of court had they not already been spoken in the House. Since then, however, things have got even worse, with the force of money being used to prevent women from complaining about their ex-boyfriends. One woman who received a super-injunction said to me:
	“The process is terrifying…For the first 2 months I shook! And I shake now when talking about it to someone”.
	Questions have been raised about whether I should have discussed the row between Ryan Giggs and Twitter yesterday. I am not a party to the privacy case. I have not been served with the injunction. I have not actually seen the injunction and cannot guarantee that it actually
	exists. I have read his name in the
	Sunday Herald
	, and on Wikipedia and Twitter. I could obviously stand on a soapbox in Scotland and say what I said in the House of Commons. I believe I could probably say it on Hyde park corner, because it is in the public domain. For me to have abused parliamentary privilege, I would have had to use it in the first instance, but I do not think that the case has been made that it would have been contempt of court outside the House.
	I remain concerned, however, that the process of issuing contempt of court proceedings has been kicked off against users of Twitter. Someone should not be able to hide behind anonymity to take action against others. I am completely unsure what the legal position is in respect of naming Giles Coren. I do not think it would be contempt of court to name him outside the House, yet The Times was worried enough yesterday not to identify him—and he is one of its journalists. I will not identify the footballer whom, it is rumoured, would like to see him prosecuted for tweeting.

Adam Afriyie: I fully approve of the hon. Gentleman’s campaign to ensure that injunctions and super-injunctions do not interfere with our constituents’ ability to contact us and speak to us about issues. However, will he explain to the House why he thinks he is judge and jury on whether certain people under court order should be named in this place? Why does he feel he has the right above anybody else? It seems very strange to use privilege in such a way.

John Hemming: I explained that those details were already in the public domain and accessible in Forbes Magazine, the Sunday Herald and many other places, so I do not think it would have been contempt of court outside the House. However, I accept the Speaker’s ruling on this issue.
	I refer hon. Members to a story in The Guardian today relating to another injunction. I shall read out the first paragraph:
	“A wealthy British financier is seeking to have his sister-in-law secretly jailed in a libel case, in the latest escalation of the controversy over superinjunctions and the internet, the Guardian can disclose.”
	What we have here is true secret justice: somebody is being prosecuted in secret; they cannot be identified; and the person prosecuting them cannot be identified. As a rule, the Attorney-General does not prosecute civil cases, which the privacy cases are; one of the parties usually prosecutes.

John Cryer: That has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman did yesterday.

John Hemming: Actually, it has everything to do with what I did yesterday, because Giles Coren was subject to similar contempt proceedings. There is a great danger that a secret form of jurisprudence will develop that aims to jail people in secret and keep their identities out of the public domain for relatively trivial issues.
	The law of confidentiality and privacy, as being developed by the courts, seems to be in opposition to the views of Parliament about whistleblowing. That is an important point. A number of the court orders in place act to prevent people from reporting issues, whether to the police, the General Medical Council, coastguards or
	whomever. The rule of law is undermined by the court orders preventing that information from being given. That is another important issue.

Richard Bacon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that judges have also issued court orders naming Members of Parliament as people who cannot be spoken to?

John Hemming: Indeed. The issues of freedom of speech are not just about what goes in the newspapers; they are also about who communicates with whom and how tightly controlled things are. Some of the court orders issued prevent people from complaining to friends about what has been done to them; some prevent them from complaining to Members of Parliament; and others prevent them from going to the police with information. A dangerous system is developing. It is wrong to think that there is a difference between the ZAM case reported in The Guardian today and that of Giles Coren, because he could have faced exactly the same process.

John Cryer: What about Giggs?

John Hemming: The point I was making about Giggs was that his name was in the public domain already, so it would not have been contempt of court to name him outside the House. That is quite straightforward, and it does not, therefore, involve the use of privilege.
	However, there is an argument about privilege where the legal position is uncertain, as it can be at times. We do not want to be unable to debate things because working out whether we can talk about them is so complex. Privilege is important and it needs to be used responsibly—there is no question about that—but my argument is straightforward. To have abused privilege, I would have to have used the name in the first instance, yet no one has evidenced to me the basis on which it would have been contempt of court for me to say outside the House what I said yesterday in it, and if it was not contempt of court outside, it cannot be an abuse of privilege within—

Nicholas Boles: Why did you not say it outside then?

John Hemming: Because it would not have been reported.
	Anyway, the accountability of judicial processes depends not only on there being a public judgment, but on people having the ability externally to challenge the evidence that the courts are using. The problem with secrecy is that this all breaks down. Indeed, the report in The Guardian today about the secret committal of the sister-in-law is an example of exactly that situation, where there is no possibility of checking externally the evidence for whether the assumptions are correct. There are great questions about the reliability of much of the expert evidence provided in the family courts. If we cannot rely on the expert evidence, we will have difficulty relying on the conclusions.
	There are many, many problems, and I will obviously be submitting a detailed report to the Joint Committee on the difficulties with the various injunctions. We also have a difficult day today, so I will not use up all my time. The issue of secret jailing is one that we cannot drop. Obviously we cannot do much more about it over
	the recess, but we cannot allow a process to continue whereby attempts are made to commit more and more people in secret proceedings. This all arises from the objective of protecting relatively trivial secrets, but it is not even close to open justice. The balancing act has completely failed when we are trying to balance somebody’s liberty on one side against something relatively trivial on the other.

Anna Soubry: I am exceptionally grateful to you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have perhaps rather better news—it is at least different news—than we heard in the previous speech. I would like to talk briefly about the outstanding work of magistrates and the invaluable role that they play in the criminal justice system.
	Magistrates were created some 650 years ago—we are talking about a very long-standing office—and they are to be congratulated, as I am sure we would all agree. There are now 29,000 magistrates in England and Wales. Their minimum requirement is to sit for 26 half-days a year. Some 98% of all legal proceedings are conducted in magistrates courts, which perhaps puts into perspective the outstanding contribution that they regularly make to the justice system. Magistrates bring to bear their considerable experience, knowledge and wisdom to both criminal and family matters. It is perhaps a testament to their ability to dispense justice fairly and properly that they are so rarely challenged in any higher place. In the last 650 years, magistrates have faced many changes and challenges. Their outstanding chairman, Mr John Thornhill, whom I spoke to today, has told me that, notwithstanding all the changes, magistrates always bounce back.

Andrew Bingham: On the subject of magistrates bouncing back, is my hon. Friend aware that magistrates’ allowances and subsistence fees are under review for a possible reduction to bring them in line with the rest of the civil service? However, there is a crucial difference: our magistrates are volunteers, not salaried staff.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am sure that everyone in this place would join me in congratulating him and his wife, who is sitting up in the Gallery, on celebrating their 25th—their silver—wedding anniversary.
	Moving swiftly on to the important point that my hon. Friend makes, our magistrates are indeed volunteers. They receive a small subsistence allowance. I am sure that, like my hon. Friend, many hon. Members will have received letters and e-mails from magistrates in their constituencies who are concerned about plans to reduce their daily allowance and cut their mileage allowance.

Robert Buckland: It is important to emphasise that the lay magistracy already makes our judiciary in England and Wales one of the cheapest in any comparable Council of Europe country. We would be cutting back a system that is already very efficient.

Anna Soubry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Lay magistrates normally sit in threes, as opposed to the stipendiary district judges who sit alone. Despite that
	fact, lay magistrates are considerably cheaper than stipendiary judges. I am not suggesting that they do a lesser job, however. Both are integral to our criminal justice system.
	Another great challenge that our magistrates face is the cutting of 93 magistrates courts. That has been debated at length in this place and in Westminster Hall, and it is a matter of great concern. I do not have much difficulty with the reduction in the number of magistrates courts, but I accept that many people are concerned about the ability to deliver local justice and about the extra strain that this will put on our lay magistrates, who are volunteers, through the extra mileage and work that they will have to do.

Andrew Percy: My hon. Friend is entirely right in what she says about magistrates. She has mentioned court closures, and we are losing our magistrates court in Goole. When that happens, it will be quicker for some of my constituents to get to King’s Cross than to the replacement magistrates services in Beverley.

Anna Soubry: I take my hon. Friend’s point, and I am grateful for it. I would counter it, however, by saying that those of us who are familiar with the Crown courts will know that defendants and witnesses who appear in them make the effort and appear there without too much difficulty. I struggle to see how there will be much difference when a defendant or witness has to travel to a magistrates court that is further away following the closure of a more local one.
	There are many myths surrounding our lay magistrates. The days of the stereotype of the middle-aged lady—not that there is anything wrong with middle-aged ladies—are long gone. The days are gone when women of a certain age and from a certain social class dispensed justice, usually wearing a hat—not that there is anything wrong with hats, I must also swiftly add. We now see magistrates drawn from all walks of life, and rightly so. Their experience and knowledge is also often brought to bear in the Crown court, when they sit with a Crown court judge to decide appeals. They perform an invaluable role there.
	I have only one complaint, and I am grateful to my constituent, Mr Roy Plumb, in this regard. He lives in Kimberley, and he served as a magistrate for many years. He performed the role admirably. However, at the age of 70, he was forced to retire. The irony of the situation is that he was born on the very same day in the very same ward of the very same hospital as our esteemed Lord Chancellor. It is somewhat ironic that, while our Lord Chancellor was being appointed to his role, in which I hope he serves for many years, Mr Plumb was being forced to retire, as are other magistrates who reach their 70th birthday.
	I am against ageism—of course, I would say that as I get older. It is wrong to assume that, just because someone is of a certain age, they will perform in a certain way. Just because someone who is under 30 is appointed to serve as a lay magistrate, which Governments of all persuasions have sought to encourage, it does not mean that they will necessarily bring to the bench more youthful ideas or be able to identify more closely with
	young people. I subscribe to the notion that it does not matter what it says on someone’s birth certificate; the test is whether they are young at heart and fit in mind, and whether they have all the faculties to exercise sound judgment.
	I know that the previous Government were questioned by people of all political persuasions—this is not an issue of party politics—on whether magistrates should have to retire at 70. Crown court judges can often sit until they are 73 and I believe High Court judges do not have to retire until they are 75, or at least they can sit in court until that age. I would suggest that this seems a little unfair to magistrates, especially, as I say, with our great Lord Chancellor being able to continue to serve for many years to come.
	I am sure that all would agree with me in celebrating and thanking our lay magistrates. I urge the Government to view ageism as a thing of the past, so that our magistrates should not have to retire at 70. Mr Plumb might be able to return to the bench. We should certainly give great credit to his campaign and wish it well for the future.

Andrew Percy: I shall speak about the compensation scheme for the victims of overseas terrorism. Before I do so, I would like to pay tribute to a number of Members from different parties who have worked hard on this issue—not least the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who would have spoken in this debate were it not for the fact that he thought he would have to be in the Finance Bill Committee. I thank him and his staff for the support they have given. I would also like to thank my Lincolnshire colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who has secured meetings with Ministers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). I also thank the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) and the former Member for Makerfield, Lord McCartney, who have both worked hard on this issue over the years. Above all, I pay tribute to the families of the victims of terrorism who have also worked incredibly hard over a number of years and continue to campaign vigorously on it; some of them are present today. Let me outline some of the issues and problems connected with this matter, before looking at the history and putting some questions to the Minister.
	Since the Bali bombings in 2002, there have been 58 deaths and 37 serious injuries arising from terror attacks against our citizens overseas. It is my view, and that of many Members, that the British Government continue to have a responsibility for their citizens even when they leave these shores. British victims of terrorism in the UK are eligible for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, but that does not extend to victims of terrorism overseas. Travel insurers do not normally pay out for death, injury or costs associated with terror attacks, as they do for death, injury and some costs associated with other violent crimes suffered abroad. Similarly, many foreign Governments do not compensate foreign nationals who are attacked on their territory. This is particularly true in countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey and India, where there are many Western tourists, including our own people, and multiple terror threats.
	The real issue is that this is not just about British citizens being caught up by accident in attacks while overseas, as many of them have been targeted precisely because they hold Her Majesty’s passport. In Mumbai, gunmen in the Taj Mahal hotel said, “We want US and British,” before inspecting passports, and they then targeted individuals. That is why it is not appropriate for Ministers back here in the UK to bracket terror attacks with other crimes in their correspondence with victims. Terrorism is of a totally different order to other violent crimes suffered abroad. Surely our Government should bear some responsibility for our citizens when they are attacked overseas for nothing more than being British.

Nicholas Boles: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important issue, and also the hon. Gentleman—the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont)—whose constituency I should not even venture to try to pronounce. I would like briefly to thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me, some victims and their parents. Does my hon. Friend agree that as people are targeted, as he suggests, simply because they are British citizens, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to make a clear commitment to put in place compensation retrospectively for past victims, and a future scheme for any—God forbid—future victims of terrorism abroad? Does he agree that this clear commitment is based on a moral obligation that we all have to stand by our fellow citizens when they are caught up through no fault of their own in such attacks?

Andrew Percy: I entirely agree. We compensate people who are victims of terrorism on our own soil, but we do not compensate our own citizens when they are victims—simply because they are British—in other countries.

Gregg McClymont: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this issue. Does he agree that, in a sense, if United Kingdom citizens are fearful of travelling abroad, the terrorists win? Government compensation will not remove that fear entirely, but a sense among British citizens that their Government will stand behind them when they leave these shores is an important part of the wider effort to combat terrorism wherever it occurs.

Andrew Percy: Absolutely. Again, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done in this regard. We certainly expect the British Government to stand behind our people wherever they are in the world, particularly if they are attacked, and it is true that if British citizens are put off the idea of travelling, the terrorists win. Many people travel to countries to which the Foreign Office has advised them not to travel. There is at least some implication that their travel is safe and that the British Government will support them if the need arises, as we do through our consulates, embassies and high commissions around the world.
	Victims of the bombings in Sharm el Sheikh in 2005 were told by Ministers at the time that they should seek redress from the perpetrators of the attack. Given the time constraints, I cannot give all the details, but let me talk about one family in particular: the Bennett family from Durham, who were bombed on a minibus in Turkey in July 2005, suffering considerable injuries, and
	one of whose members, Helyn Bennett, was killed. The family pursued the Turkish authorities through the court system for six years following that advice, and it is only thanks to the generosity of the insurers and of Turkish courts that they have been protected from crippling legal costs. However, despite the award of £1 million reflecting the gravity of the injuries, the Turkish authorities have refused to pay out, and an appeal is in progress.

Stephen Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Percy: I will give way very briefly.

Stephen Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the coalition has a responsibility to deliver on the last Government’s commitment to pay compensation? British citizens who were victims of attacks from Bali to Sharm el Sheikh have yet to receive a penny, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), will soon put that dreadful injustice right.

Andrew Percy: Again, I entirely agree. Those three interventions illustrate the cross-party support for the campaign.
	Although the award to the Bennett family was made 18 months ago in the Turkish courts, no funds have been made available to them. They are exceptional in pursuing international litigation, which, as we know, is incredibly complicated and beyond the means of most people. That is why victims were delighted when, in October 2005, the former Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House:
	“officials are considering the possibility of introducing a scheme to provide compensation for…UK victims of terrorism”
	—crucially—
	“ wherever that may happen.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 839.]
	It took a long time for that pledge to be fulfilled, and victims and their families continued to campaign. They worked successfully with some of the Members whom I named earlier to establish the humanitarian assistance scheme, and in 2010 the then Home Secretary and Justice Secretary provided for a statutory compensation scheme as part of the Crime and Security Act 2010. That would have enabled victims to be compensated with tariffs identical to those offered by the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Subsequently, 37 survivors of terrorist attacks abroad were written to and informed that they would be eligible to claim. Sadly, however, the change of Government has delayed the process somewhat, and the picture is a little unclear. Families are not sure where we are heading.
	May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what progress has been made with the review that was announced some time ago, whom is he consulting, and when he will make a statement to the House on the issue? Will the issue of the retrospective ex gratia payments promised to existing terror victims and their families be settled at the same time as the review of any future statutory compensation scheme? Will he confirm that the Government accept the principle that terrorism is distinct from other forms of crime, and that Her Majesty’s Government have a responsibility to our citizens who
	are attacked overseas on the basis of their nationality? Finally, may I urge the Minister to address this matter quickly, so that victims and their families receive the justice that they deserve?

Crispin Blunt: I shall address each of the issues raised in turn. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) again raised an important issue that has featured prominently in the press in recent days and weeks. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and it is of the greatest importance that people should be able to discuss and debate issues as freely and openly as possible—and as frequently as possible, I might add as I am returning to the Chamber to discuss this matter again following yesterday’s performance.
	As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in response to yesterday’s urgent question, there is a balance to be struck when the issues concerned relate to a person’s private life. That has always been the case, and now, in the current context, the European convention on human rights specifically establishes the article 8 right to respect for private and family life, alongside the right under article 10 to freedom of expression.

John Hemming: On the specific question, does the Minister agree that it is unreasonable for an anonymous person to apply to commit another anonymous person in a secret hearing?

Crispin Blunt: I want to make sure that I approach this matter carefully.
	In each individual case, the courts have to consider the balance between the two competing rights I have just mentioned. In addition, when considering whether to grant a civil remedy or order, such as an injunction, which affects the convention right to freedom of expression, the courts have to take into account section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires particular regard to be given to the importance of that right.
	I should also explain that injunctions preventing reporting or disclosure of information may be granted for a number of reasons, and not just for the protection of privacy. They might, for instance, be granted for the following reasons: to protect documents subject to legal professional privilege or commercial secrets; to prevent the release of other information obtained by a party in confidence; to protect children or vulnerable people; or to prevent the release of information about an order freezing the assets of a person suspected of fraud where that might alert other participants in the fraud and lead to them disposing of assets or leaving the country.
	The report of the Master of the Rolls’ committee on the procedural aspects of super-injunctions and anonymity injunctions published last Friday makes an important contribution to the debate on these issues, particularly in the context of the debate on privacy. The report reaffirms that open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle, and that exceptions to it are permissible only to the extent that they are strictly necessary in the interests of justice. Such decisions will necessarily be
	made in each particular case, dependent on the facts of that case. The report suggests that when that is necessary, the facts of the case and the reason for secrecy should be explained, as far as possible, in an openly available judgment. It also emphasises that super-injunctions—which is where the fact that there is an injunction has to be kept secret as well as the substantive issues—are now being granted only for very short periods where secrecy is necessary to ensure that the entire point of the order is not destroyed. That should help to allay concerns both that super-injunctions were being granted far too readily and about their potential open-endedness.
	The Government welcome the report by the Master of the Rolls, which contains important recommendations that will ensure that injunctions are granted only where strictly necessary. We recognise the importance of striking the correct balance between individual rights to privacy on the one hand and rights to freedom of expression and transparency of official information on the other.
	As the Attorney-General also said yesterday, the Prime Minister has written to the Chairmen of the Justice Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommending that a Joint Committee of both Houses be established to consider how current arrangements might be improved. The Justice Secretary and the Culture Secretary will liaise with those Chairmen regarding the terms of reference of the Joint Committee. Such a Committee will be able to use representation from both Houses and the considerable expertise that Select Committees have, to examine the way in which the current arrangements are working and to consider whether we might make any changes to make things work better. That is where matters stand now.
	I shall now discuss the welcome speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on the importance of the magistracy. I wholly agreed with the general drive of it. This year sees the 650th anniversary of the enshrining in statute of the role of justice of the peace by King Edward III in Westminster Hall. The role has changed a great deal over time. Indeed, it was not until the first half of the 19th century that non-conformists and Roman Catholics could become magistrates, and not until the early 20th century that the property qualification for magistrates was removed. From its long and rich historical roots, the magistracy has developed into a fundamental civic institution at the heart of our criminal justice system, and there are 27,000 magistrates in England and Wales today.
	Our magistrates are ordinary people from all walks of life who do extraordinary work on behalf of us all. As my hon. Friend said, they deal with the vast majority—95%—of criminal cases in England and substantial amounts of civil work. They are people who care passionately about their communities and the value of the rule of law. What makes magistrates all the more remarkable is that such a vital part of our justice system is composed of unpaid part-time volunteers. They are a very important part of the big society in action.
	I wish briefly to discuss how the Government want to consider developing the role of magistrates further, not least in respect of restorative justice. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has said,
	“restorative justice is a reflection of what we are talking about when describing the Big Society....This is about taking justice out of the narrow confines of the courts and putting it into the community”.
	There can be no better expression of justice grounded in the community than magistrates, who are the epitome of justice for the community by the community. As our recent Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle” set out, we are committed to increasing the range and availability of restorative justice approaches to support reparation in the adult and youth justice systems.
	Neighbourhood justice panels bring together community volunteers, offenders and victims, harnessing restorative techniques to broker justice outcomes. I would very much welcome the greater involvement of the magistracy in institutions such as neighbourhood justice panels, but we can also successfully extend a role for the magistracy in the entire panoply of elements that deliver justice in the community.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe mentioned the retirement age. The Government recognise that at 70 the majority of judicial office holders will be mentally and physically equal to the demands of the work. However, following careful consideration, including discussion with the senior judiciary, it was decided that the current mandatory retirement age should remain. So I am afraid that I cannot offer any comfort for Mr Plumb, despite the date and the ward on which he was born.
	The Government are reviewing the travel and subsistence allowances paid to magistrates, with the aim of ensuring that they are not disadvantaged financially because of their important public service while also getting the best and appropriate value for money for the taxpayer. The Courts and Tribunals Service will meet representatives of the Magistrates Association and the National Bench Chairmen’s Forum, and the senior presiding judge, on 15 June to discuss how to develop a new approach to magistrates allowances, and no decisions have yet been taken.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on making his contribution about the victims of overseas terrorism. This is a difficult and emotive issue. I know that there is continuing interest in this area, to put it mildly, and several hon. Members have raised the matter recently. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) said, I recently met his constituent Trevor Lakin and Nigel and Will Pike with him. Mr Lakin lost his son Jeremy in the Sharm el Sheikh bombing in 2005 and Will Pike was paralysed as a result of injuries sustained following the attack on the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai in 2008. Through my hon. Friend, I heard first hand about the devastating impact that terrorism has had on them and continues to have on their lives and on the lives of their families. They shared with me their experiences of terrorism abroad and their frustration and disappointment at the lack of support available to victims after they return home.
	Terrorist crime is usually indiscriminate and devastating and usually comes without warning. Its impact can be horrific, not just for the victim but for the victim’s family and loved ones. My deepest sympathies, and those of the whole Administration, go out to all those
	who have suffered in that way or who have lost loved ones through such tragedies.
	Since the spending review settlement, the Ministry of Justice has been reviewing the services available to victims, witnesses and their families. We are also considering afresh proposals for the introduction of schemes to compensate eligible victims of terrorism overseas. We expect to be able to make an announcement before the summer recess.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole mentioned support for victims overseas, as did the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who made an intervention on that point. Her Majesty’s Government stand behind our people overseas; for those who have not had dealings with the system, coming across it in the wake of an appalling experience is difficult and distressing. To alleviate some of this distress, we have revisited the support available to British victims caught up in terrorist attacks abroad. The exceptional assistance measures scheme run by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides immediate assistance with air fares, accommodation and repatriation for victims and their families. From 16 December last year that help has been available to all British victims regardless of their travel insurance arrangements.
	Let me point out that according to the Association of British Insurers, 66% of existing policies cover such attacks, but are mostly limited to overseas medical expenses, repatriation costs and a lump sum for personal accident cover. Furthermore, the Red Cross relief fund for victims of terrorism abroad continues to provide emergency funds of up to £15,000 for those who suffer injury or are bereaved through terrorism and normally live in the UK. The fund was begun with £1 million of funding provided under the previous Administration.
	Families bereaved as a result of overseas terrorism may also be assigned a specialist family liaison officer by the police. The officer is specially trained and acts as a single point of contact for bereaved families. The officer will answer questions, seek to obtain updates on case progress overseas and provide dedicated one-to-one support for the family.
	I appreciate that dealing with the consequences of any crime is anything but easy. There are services on offer to help guide people through the justice process and to provide emotional support, but there is still more to do. There are challenges in the current system in ensuring that the support given is the right support, and that it is offered quickly and to the right people. That is why I and my colleagues in other Departments are working to improve the services that we can provide. We are working to ensure that central Government, local authorities, voluntary organisations and local communities link together to provide joined-up support to victims and families. I look forward to being able to give the House more details about the Government’s proposals soon, and I anticipate that that will be before the summer recess.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

Dawn Primarolo: We will now move on to debate issues that relate to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Two Members are listed to speak and when the Minister has replied to them, we will move on to the general debate. It might be helpful for hon. Members to know that those who wish to take part in the general debate should stay seated at present and once the Minister has spoken we will move on. I remind Members that we have a six-minute time limit and I remind the Minister of that, too, as Ministers are supposed to be as brief and succinct as we expect other Members to be.

Keith Vaz: I note that the other subject in this small section is that of Christians in Iran. I was just reminiscing with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) about how when we were born in Aden in Yemen we were Christians in an Arab country and how well we were treated by the people of South Yemen, as it then was.
	It breaks my heart to come before the House yet again to talk about the crisis that is occurring in Yemen. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), on the Front Bench, because I want to pay tribute to him, to the Foreign Secretary and to the Government for the amount of face-time and focus that they have given to the situation in Yemen. I am very grateful for that, because the globe is very big and Yemen is a very small country. Ministers and the Government have spent an enormous amount of time in ensuring that this House, the rest of the country and, indeed, the world are focused on these issues.
	As I speak, the crisis in Yemen is deepening. We have been told for a number of days that the President is about to sign an agreement, which has been brokered by the Gulf Co-operation Council led by the Saudi Arabians, on his making a dignified exit so that a new Government consisting of members of the opposition, some of whom are not involved in politics—a kind of Government of national unity—can take power. Each time I meet Ministers in the Palace of Westminster they brief me on what is happening and tell me what they know, which is that the President is about to sign. We had thought that was the case just 24 hours ago, but then we heard that our ambassador John Wilks had been penned into the United Arab Emirates embassy in Sana’a as he and other dignitaries had been preparing to go to the presidential palace to witness the signature of the President, which did not happen. Now the crisis is getting deeper and deeper. We already have a political crisis that could well lead to civil war in Yemen, which we had before and which ended with the reunification of southern Yemen and northern Yemen to create the state that currently exists. We also have a humanitarian crisis: 40% of Yemenis live on less than £1.25 a day, there is 50% illiteracy and 7 million people do not have enough food to live and survive in Yemen every day. That is why this political crisis has become a military crisis and it is also a humanitarian crisis.
	When the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee early last week, I asked him to do one thing: to see whether there is any way in which our country,
	which has an honourable record in such matters, could send an envoy to try to bring the sides together. What I have heard from my contacts in Yemen—I have visited Yemen almost every year since my family left in 1965 and certainly every year that I have been a Member of the House—is that Britain’s role is absolutely crucial. Whether it is through Britain working on its own, the UK working within the EU, or the United States of America working with EU partners and our country—whichever mechanism we have—we need to try to fill this vacuum, because if we do not there will be civil war in Yemen.
	We are told that the death of Osama bin Laden has led to the appointment of a new person to run al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and we know that he, Anwar al-Awlaki, is in Yemen. There is a danger that unless we deal with this situation now, al-Qaeda will have an even greater hold on that country and will be part of the process by which it is driven into civil war.
	Every time I have talked about Yemen, I have talked about a crisis and said that it is worsening. Every time that things get even worse, I think that they have reached a stage at which they will not get worse, but they do. My one plea to the Minister, therefore, is that he continues his efforts, for which I am very grateful, but looks carefully, as the Prime Minister promised to do when he answered my questions at the Liaison Committee last week, into appointing an envoy who can try to bring the sides together so that we can have peace in that very beautiful but very sad country.

Andrew Selous: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I was particularly pleased to hear his comments about how well he was treated as a Christian growing up in an Arab country, which provide a sorry contrast with what I am about to say about Iran.
	I am grateful to Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Elam Ministries for the briefing that they have given me in advance of today’s debate. I approach the subject with a degree of humility, conscious that this country has not always got right either the treatment of other faiths or the treatment of other Christian denominations, culminating in the Act of Toleration which we passed in 1689. We have made improvements since that time.
	Yesterday in the House a famous footballer was named. In the course of my remarks I shall mention the names of eight Iranian Christians who are currently in prison for no reason other than their faith. Iran wants to persecute Christians in secret, but I believe the world should know and show its concern for what Iran is doing. Christianity has been present in Iran since the second century. We find crosses on coins from around 50 AD, and in the seventh century Iranian missionaries travelled to central Asia, India and China.
	Christianity has been protected officially since the 1979 revolution. Article 23 of the Iranian constitution states: “The investigation of individuals’ beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief.” Iran claims that there is religious freedom, but the reality is very different. In spite of that, the Church has grown and there are possibly hundreds of thousands of Iranian Christians today. What we see is a lack of tolerance, oppression and persecution.
	Open Doors puts Iran at No. 2 on its world watch list of the most severely persecuted countries in which Christians live; North Korea is No. 1.
	Christian leaders must report to the Ministry of Information, which demands lists of members of churches. There are regular threats and intimidation. It is illegal to distribute Bibles. The Bible Society was closed down by the Government in 1990. The Iranian authorities have burned Bibles that they have confiscated. In May 2010 they burned hundreds of Bibles and New Testaments intercepted on the Iraqi border. In October last year more than 300 New Testaments were taken and burned by security forces on the Turkish border. Only three months ago, on 7 February 2011, 300 New Testaments were seized by authorities in Salmas, in West Azerbaijan, and publicly burned. Many of us in the House and around the world rightly condemned the attempts by the Florida pastor, Terry Jones, to burn the Koran, but I am not aware of any political leader in Iran—Islamic or otherwise—who has condemned the burning of Bibles. I hope Muslim leaders in the UK will condemn the practice.
	Since the mid-1980s Christians have faced arbitrary arrest and imprisonment for their faith. Mehdi Dibaj was in prison for nine years between 1984 and 1993, mostly in solitary confinement, before being sentenced to death for his faith in 1994. Later that year, he was murdered after his release from prison. There has been escalating persecution and an increase in arrests in 2010 and 2011, with 282 known arrests of Christians in 34 cities since June last year.
	In prison, Christians are subject to solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, interrogation—particularly about the location of Christian leaders—threats of execution and harm to their family, verbal and physical torture, and lack of medical treatment, and they are called on to renounce their faith. Prisoners are often required to hand over large sums of money and surrender the deeds to their houses to try to get out of prison.
	Mostafa Shokrollahi and Khalil Yar-Ali were imprisoned on 15 January 2011. Noorollah Ghabitizadeh was imprisoned in Dezfool on Christmas eve, 2010. Farshid Fathi was arrested on Boxing day 2010. Even though his family raised $200,000 in bail, he is still in prison. Vahik Abrahamian was imprisoned in Hamadan on 4 September 2010. Masoud Delijani was arrested on 17 March this year. Abrahim Firouzi was imprisoned in Robat-Karim on 11 January this year, and his family cannot afford the $40,000 in bail demanded of them. Yousef Nadarkhani was imprisoned in Rasht on October 2009 and sentenced in November to death by hanging. He is currently awaiting trial before the Supreme Court. If the sentence is upheld, that will be the first execution for apostasy in 20 years, a very worrying development.
	Such treatment seems to be officially sanctioned. Ayatollah Khamenei has talked disparagingly about the spread of the network of house churches. On 4 January this year, the Governor of Tehran, Morteza Tamadon, announced the arrest of 39 evangelical Christians whom he described as “deviants”. Apostates can be referred to the revolutionary court.
	I request the UK Government to be active in calling for the release of those in prison for their faith, to call for the investigation into how the Iranian Government use the death penalty for apostasy, to denounce the use of intimidation to curtail religious freedom, and to call on Iran to fulfil its constitutional provision for religious
	freedom and address its rhetoric and constitutional discrimination against religious minorities.

Alistair Burt: I thank my friends on both sides of the House, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for raising these two subjects, which are difficult and disappointing for us all. Both speeches were a measure of how much the House depends on the good briefings that Ministers get in this place from colleagues whose knowledge of a subject can be deep and long lasting and which comes with great passion and from the heart. We could not talk about Yemen without being briefed by the right hon. Gentleman, whose contributions we are all fortunate to have.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about the difficulties of the current crisis in Yemen. I could have given nearly all of his speech from here, as his appreciation of the background to the current situation is entirely accurate. Yemen matters to the United Kingdom for a variety of reasons. It is a place of strategic importance, we have a history there and it faces a number of challenges with which this country, not alone but with others, has been engaged for some time. There are territorial disputes in the north and the south of the country and a chronic economic crisis that is being worsened by the political crisis currently besetting it. The security crisis very much relates to the presence of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which has a significant presence there, as the right hon. Gentleman said.
	As a result of those various factors, the international community has supported Yemen in a variety of ways. The Friends of Yemen group was started towards the end of the previous Government’s period of office, and we have continued it. It is a group of international partners, including those in the Gulf, the United States, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as significant partners, that work together with the Government of Yemen to try to find a way through the various political, economic and security problems.
	Much has hung on the individual character and personality of the President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has been in office for 32 years. As this year has gone on, it is clear that his legitimacy as President has been called into question. Protests from the people have mounted, opposition parties have expressed their concerns more volubly and the army has divided. Sadly, the protests, the aspirations for greater political freedom and the prospect of change to a more constitutionally based system of rule have been met with increasing violence and a number of deaths, the toll of which rises week by week.
	The international community has reacted by working with those elements in the region to see whether there is any answer other than Ali Abdullah Saleh stepping down from power after so long. We all conclude that it is not possible to see an end to the problem without his leaving. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, attempts have been made to find a way for the President to leave that will allow a peaceful transition as part of a constitutional process. It will not be simple and lots of work will be needed with the various parties in the transitional process to work towards an expression of democratic freedom and the election of a new President and a new Government.
	Time after time, the President has come close to signifying his own support for such a system. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman was correct to say that the Gulf Co-operation Council and, in particular, its new general secretary, Dr al-Zayani, have been instrumental in putting together the most recent document, and significantly over the past few days every other possible signatory to such an agreement has signed it. The President’s own party, the Opposition parties and those who could play a part in the process have agreed to and signed the document. The last piece of the jigsaw was to have been put in place on Sunday, when the President was due to sign, but for the third time he came close to the wire and withdrew from it.

Keith Vaz: We have an opportunity, because the President of the United States is in the UK and meeting the Prime Minister. Indeed, I saw this morning that they had written a joint article for The Times. If there is a British-US initiative, perhaps there is a chance that on a conference call the President of Yemen will listen. Could we consider that?

Alistair Burt: May I give the idea some thought? I must reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the United States is clearly engaged in the situation, as are the rest of us, but the point is that the GCC and its general secretary came so close, and we should back them. The President of Yemen was almost there, and the signature was almost on the document. We believe that that is the best hope.
	All the other parties seem to agree that the transitional process, which could be put in place by signing the document, allows for a 90-day transition period and offers guarantees to the family of Ali Abdullah Saleh, is the best hope for the future. It is also the President’s best hope and the best hope for the peace in the region. We are worried about reports that armed tribes are going into the capital, because that increases the risk of confrontation between the various bodies. The situation is absolutely immediate; it is ongoing as we speak.
	The right hon. Gentleman was correct also to talk of the atrocious pressure put on ambassadors on Sunday, when the United Arab Emirates embassy was surrounded in a clear attempt to intimidate people and to prevent the President from signing.
	So, we know where we are, and on the subject of the envoy the House should trust us. We are already heavily engaged, and our ambassadors to Yemen have repeatedly played a major role in working with others. For the time being, we will get behind the GCC and work with it to achieve a signing. We will continue to play a very important role, and I will continue to bring the House up to date as often as possible—and as needed. We all hope that sooner or later the saga will end, particularly for the good of the people of Yemen, who deserve to have the matter brought to a conclusion so that their country can enter a new chapter. If the President, by his own actions, leads a peaceful transition, he will have been of great service to his country at this time.
	I turn briefly to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, who rightly raised the difficulties of Christians in Iran and will have spoken for a variety of other minorities. We remain very concerned about the treatment of Christians and several other minorities—religious, ethnic and linguistic—in Iran. The
	ongoing systematic persecution of minorities contravenes all Iran’s most basic obligations to international human rights standards, and it deprives thousands of the chance to practise their faith without hindrance or fear.
	I commend to the House the publication by Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2011”, which is the latest edition, in which there is good information about the human rights records of many countries. In that aspect of the regime, as in so many others, Iran makes depressing reading. The report states:
	“Authorities announced that security forces had arrested more than 6,000 individuals after”—
	the disputed elections of—
	“June 2009. Hundreds—including lawyers, rights defenders, journalists, civil society activists, and opposition leaders—remain in detention without charge.”
	The list of executions is longer than any other country’s except China’s.
	Christians, as my hon. Friend said, are a minority protected by law in Iran, and in bilateral meetings in Tehran and in London we repeatedly call on Iran to respect the rights of all who choose their own faith and method of worship. We have also worked with our EU partners and through the UN to highlight those issues for the wider international community and to put pressure on Iran to fulfil its obligations to the Iranian people. We are aware of unconfirmed reports of the burning of Bibles in Iran. The UK wholly condemns the desecration of any spiritual or religious artefacts or symbols of faith, including scriptures. Given that Iran heavily criticised Terry Jones, the American pastor who planned to burn the Koran last year, we call on the Iranian Government to end the hypocrisy and religious intolerance.
	The demanding of large bails in Iran is sadly a common problem shared by all who feel the persecution of the system, which is designed to put on pressure. We are aware of those mentioned by my hon. Friend who were victims of the round-up and the crackdown on house churches after Christmas last year. That increased policy of detention continues to be a cause of great concern. Although we understand that the majority of those detained have been released, a number remain in custody, and we continue to believe that there were no legal or moral grounds for their initial detention—a point that we have made repeatedly to the Iranian authorities. Such intimidation on the grounds of faith and practice of worship should stop immediately. We call on Iran to allow all members of all faiths freely to participate in open worship.
	We continue to work for the betterment of human rights through international institutions. The EU recently agreed to sanction Iranian individuals for human rights abuses, and the UN Human Rights Council voted at the end of March to install a special rapporteur to report on the human rights situation in Iran and to make thorough recommendations to the Iranian authorities, the Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council.
	The comments by my hon. Friend and the case histories that he has dealt with sadly give the lie to the Iranian regime’s claim to be the voice of a republic with moral underpinning. Hypocritical in its support of protests elsewhere and condemned by its execution policy, the regime remains a sad disappointment to millions of good Muslims everywhere and, in particular, to the Iranian people, who deserve rather better.

General Matters

Dawn Primarolo: We now move on to the general debate. I inform Members that 17 speakers are listed to take part. I remind everybody that the time limit is six minutes; we will do our best to try to get everybody in. I call Eric Joyce.

Eric Joyce: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be very brief and make just one or two points. I can either speak very quickly or stick to the quality.
	I want to speak about social media and the issues that have arisen in the past couple of days. Yesterday, the Attorney-General general said in answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Justice that he would create a Committee. I presume that that would be a Committee of both Houses involving cross-party membership, but I am not yet sure how it is going to be put together. So far, the debate has had two primary variables at its heart. On the one hand, there has been the legal side, with much discussion among the usual lawyers. In fact, as far as I can see, there are only three or four lawyers in England, because they keep appearing on Channel 4 News, Newsnight and every other news programme. I will not name them, because that is not in vogue at the moment. I do not dispute that the law is a very important dimension. The other dimension is privacy, which people feel variously about. I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned about issues relating to a certain newspaper empire. To be honest, I have lesser, or different, concerns.
	Both aspects are important, but what has not been aired is the issue of technology. At the moment, the court and legal system—and, indeed, Parliament—is finding itself in a tricky position over privacy, injunctions and so forth because of the way technology is racing ahead through social media applications such as Twitter, Facebook and many other platforms; I will not run through an advertisement for all the rivals. The fact is that they exist and that there is the potential for information to circulate with astonishing speed. As the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary said yesterday, it would be wrong for us in this place to say, “That’s the law, it can’t be enforced, so we just ignore it.”
	Lord Neuberger’s report, which seemed a pretty reasonable effort, revealed some of the difficulties. Post that report, in the past couple of days, the Lord Chief Justice has tried to create some balance and reflected on the fact that some of the stuff that is said on the social media is taken pretty lightly. People gossip on the high street and at work, and that can sometimes have implications. Although I am not a lawyer, I understand that such gossip can have a legal status so that someone who took part could technically be taken to the civil courts for slander or, if they wrote it down, for libel. Social media merely—I say “merely”, but I know that there are significant implications—transfer that to the internet. One thing that the Lord Chief Justice said—I like to call him Judge Judge, because it is a great name, like the one in “Catch-22”—was that it is a simple fact that people do not give as much weight to information that they see on Twitter or wherever, because often it is
	wrong. It is patently obvious from recent cases in the media that some of the names that have come out have been wrong.
	We might be tempted to say that one just has to accept that this is gossip on the internet, that that is life, and that there is nothing that the law can do about it. However, as the Attorney-General said yesterday, we cannot do that. There are many instances in which we could say that one should just accept that because we cannot implement a particular law in every case, it is not worth having. However, that is not a general position that we accept. We know that we cannot prosecute everyone who ever commits a crime. Nevertheless, it is important that the principle is there.
	The argument about emerging technologies and what will come next is terribly important. I sat on the Standing Committee that considered the Communications Act 2003, which was the original Ofcom legislation. More recently, I took part in the debate in the House on the Digital Economy Act 2010. It is clear that it is difficult to legislate for new and emerging technologies, because one does not have the foggiest idea what will come next. Twitter is only two or three years old. We have no idea what there will be two or three years down the line. It is difficult to legislate for, or to take into account in the current debate, what will happen two or three years down the line. I want to emphasise that point, I hope it will be taken up by the Joint Committee when it comes into being and considers its position.
	When I and other people say that we have to reflect on what is possible, we are not negating the actuality that there have to be laws under which people can be pursued if there is a particularly bad breach of an injunction, or whatever. The fact is that it is enormously difficult to close the stable door once the horse has bolted. That is not a statement of hopelessness. We have to think not just about Twitter, although that is what most of the debate has been about, but about the emerging technologies just down the road—there are many and I could bang on about them at great length, but I will not because my time is almost up—and they will inevitably impact on the deliberations of the Joint Committee and on the further discussions that will no doubt take place in this House.

David Evennett: I am pleased to raise the general issue of tourism policy and some specific examples of places to visit in my London borough of Bexley.
	The UK tourism industry contributes significantly to our economy. Large and small businesses, charities and other organisations play a part in generating interest in our villages, towns and cities, from bed-and-breakfast owners and walking tour operators to historic sites, museums and galleries. They directly provide some £52 billion of our GDP and 4.4% of our jobs. Tourism is one of our fastest growing sectors. It creates jobs across our country, from city centres to the most rural communities. Regrettably, tourism in suburbs such as Bexley is under-promoted and is not as successful as it could be. I believe that more can be done in that area.
	We have tremendous opportunities to promote England as a place to visit. The recent royal wedding highlighted London’s attractions, including Buckingham palace, the
	Houses of Parliament and Westminster abbey. Those who watched it on televisions around the world or within this country will have seen our historic streets. It was an excellent advert for London, which in my opinion is still the greatest city in the world. The London Olympics and Paralympics next year will be not just a month-long festival of sport, but an opportunity to encourage more people to visit London.

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for tourism in our country. Does he agree that we should look at the VAT rate that is applied to accommodation? In this country, it is the same as the general rate, whereas in our competitor countries, it is far lower.

David Evennett: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House will note it and take it back to the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers.
	The Government’s tourism policy is an important long-term strategy that will help the tourism industry to develop further and capitalise on its strengths. I welcome the establishment of the £100 million marketing fund and its ambitious aim of attracting 4 million extra visitors to the UK over the next four years. If that can be achieved, there could be substantial economic benefits of some £2 billion, with the possibility of some 50,000 new jobs being created. That is an excellent example of how Government and the private sector can work together for the benefit of our whole country.
	I was rather disappointed to learn that only one fifth of the population take breaks of four nights or more in this country. If more people could be encouraged to go on holiday in the UK, to match the number holidaying abroad, £2 billion more could be generated for the tourist industry, and some 37,000 more jobs could be created. That would be a real benefit to our economy, and I believe it would be enjoyable for all those taking part. I still think that Britain is best for tourists and for holidays.
	I hope that Government policy is not just about bigger towns and cities. I should like to encourage more domestic and international visitors to come to my borough of Bexley, to enjoy our historic, cultural and entertainment facilities. For a start, there is Danson House, in my constituency, a grade I listed Georgian building that was purchased by Sir John Boyd in 1753 but not completed until 1766. The principal architect was the highly regarded Sir Robert Taylor, who was involved in the design of many significant buildings, such as the Bank of England. The site was landscaped by Nathaniel Richmond, who was once Capability Brown’s assistant.
	When the house was purchased by English Heritage in 1995, it was in a dilapidated state, as it had regrettably been allowed to deteriorate. English Heritage’s investment, in partnership with the Bexley Heritage Trust, has been invaluable, and both must be commended for their work to enable the house to be opened to the public. Visiting it is a fantastic experience, and I recommend it.
	I also recommend that visitors walk around the magnificent Danson park grounds. With the lake, the conversion of the stables into a pub, the investment in new play facilities and the refurbishment of the Boathouse
	restaurant, it has won multiple awards, and I believe it is the best park in London. In fact, it recently received the gold award for safety.
	A short walk from there will take visitors to the Red House, the one-time home of the artist, textile designer and writer William Morris.

John McDonnell: A socialist.

David Evennett: He was, but he did good work as well in a different area.
	The Red House was Philip Webb’s first building as an independent architect, and it was completed in 1860. It featured ceiling paintings and wall hangings by Morris and furniture painted by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and it is a fantastic experience. It was purchased by the National Trust in 2003, and I recently had the pleasure of touring the house with its new manager, James Breslin. I am confident that the National Trust will ensure that it remains open for people to enjoy for years to come. It is another gem in suburban Bexleyheath.
	Another historic property in my constituency that is open to the public is a grade I listed building and former stately home called Hall Place, which is part-Tudor and part-Jacobean and has fantastic gardens. Extensive work has recently been undertaken to ensure that it can be open for all to enjoy. I have been to a number of functions there, and the sense of history is incredible and the mixed architecture impressive and interesting.
	There is also the beautiful and historic church of St Paulinus in Crayford. It was built in the 12th century, but there is evidence that there has been a church there for more than 1,000 years. It is located at the top of Crayford hill, on the mediaeval route to the continent, and pilgrims stopped there on the way to Canterbury for respite and care. The church is the burial place of Elizabeth Shovell, the former wife of Sir Cloudesley Shovell, who was Admiral of the Fleet during the reign of Queen Anne. The former Surrey and England cricketer John Shuter is also buried there. Shuter once opened an innings with the legendary W. G. Grace, and his grave has recently been restored and rededicated with the help of the Friends of St Paulinus Church, Bexley cricket club and Surrey county cricket club. The living churchyard is a place of peace and tranquillity among the bustle of suburban Crayford.
	In the same century in which St Paulinus was built, Lesnes abbey, in the north of our borough, was founded by Richard de Luci. It has been suggested that it was built as penance for the murder of Thomas à Becket, in which de Luci was involved. The abbey ruins are located in Lesnes abbey woods and are worth a visit.
	Bexley has an awful lot to offer tourists both domestic and from abroad. I have highlighted just a few reasons for a visit, and I believe that we should develop tourism in the suburbs. It is also one of the greenest boroughs in London, with many small parks and green spaces such as Martens Grove and Bursted woods. The Erith marshes and the Crayford marshlands can be used for birdwatching, and people can walk along the River Cray. Bexleyheath Broadway offers civilised shopping, and there are quality hotels, such as the Marriott, restaurants—Assos in Crayford is a particular favourite of mine—and pubs. We have small theatres, popular sports clubs such as Welling United football club, the Europa gym and Crayford
	greyhound track. It is a great place to come, and I urge my colleagues and friends in the House to visit.
	There is much to do in my constituency and my borough, but importantly, I welcome what the Government are doing to encourage tourism nationally. It is a very important industry, but it is also an important facility for creating jobs—and for having a good time. I welcome what the Government are doing, but I urge them to consider the suburbs, because there is a lot going on there that is worth visiting as a tourist.

Tony Lloyd: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), who takes great pride in his suburb. In the same way, people in Manchester have enormous pride in what our city is all about. That is why I wanted to raise two important local issues today.
	First, the Edale unit, which is a secure mental health unit, is currently located in the central Manchester hospital. Manchester Mental Health and Social Care trust specifically had the unit designed only a few years ago as part of a private finance initiative in that hospital. The strategic health authority gifted the trust some £16 million for the project, but only four years on, the trust has decided that it wants to abandon the unit and move its facilities elsewhere.
	The trust proposes to move the unit to Park House—the site of the North Manchester hospital. By all accounts, that decision is perplexing. Patients, user groups, families and those involved in mental health delivery tell me that the facilities in Park House are less adequate than those in the Edale unit, particularly because the new facility will have mixed-sex wards and the accommodation will be dormitory-style, with six beds to a unit, and therefore less secure. Because the therapy provision in Park House is worse than that in the Edale unit, those people, who have very serious mental health conditions, will receive inferior treatment.
	Three options were examined and appraised before the change was announced, and the move to Park House was judged to be the worst of them. In health terms, therefore, the decision is perplexing, but it might be explicable if it saves the mental health trust £1.7 million a year, as the trust says it will. Money could drive the trust’s decision because of the cost pressures in the NHS, but the decision is still unacceptable, because although the move saves the mental health trust £1.7 million a year, it will cost the wider NHS economy an extra £1.9 million a year. The economics therefore do not add up. It might be good for the bookkeeping of the mental health trust, but it is bad for the health economy.
	The difficulty I have had throughout the process is that both the mental health trust and the SHA have not been open with the public. All Members of the House would regard that situation as unacceptable. Bureaucrats cannot hide important decisions behind faceless decision-making processes. No Member of Parliament would accept that for their community, and I certainly do not accept it for mine. People in my community suffer from extraordinarily high levels of mental illness, and we need the provision of a facility that is in keeping with the very best, and not simply with the second-best, as driven by narrow financial needs.
	I have asked to meet the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam
	(Paul Burstow), and I hope that happens before final decisions are made. However, I want to emphasise that the process has been inadequate and unacceptable to local people.
	The second issue is on another, very different, NHS facility: the Ancoats walk-in centre. Hon. Members often use superlatives, but my constituents in that area have some of the worst health of any people anywhere in the country. The area needs first-class health facilities. The walk-in centre was finally delivered to the Ancoats community when the former Ancoats hospital closed, which was quite a number of years ago now. There was a commitment to making health provision available for the non-chronic conditions that are so common in such areas. The health planners now intend to close this facility, thereby breaking the promise made when the Ancoats health facility was closed. That is particularly galling because the decisions were made long before any public consultation. I have a copy of the in-house magazine in February telling staff that the decision to close had been taken, yet the public consultation only began last week, on 16 May. That is unacceptable.
	I repeat that the people in the Ancoats area have some of the worst health indicators not just in Manchester but across the country. The proposed relocated unit—in fact, they are closing the unit and claiming it is a relocation—is more than four miles away, which, for people with no access to a car or other private transport, means a journey by public transport or walking. However, of the three bus services available, one requires an 18-minute walk and the other two require bus changes. For those who need health care they can walk to, which they have come to expect in recent years, the alternative unit simply is not adequate. I appeal to the Minister to tell Health Ministers that bureaucrats cannot do this to communities. Bureaucrats need to answer properly to communities.

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Whitsun recess, I wish to raise several points. The “Panorama” programme last night reinforced my view of FIFA. It is a totally corrupt organisation. We were humiliated in the bid for the world cup. I hope that our representatives will not vote for either of the two candidates, and that we will withdraw from FIFA. I am a lifelong supporter of West Ham and am delighted that we have got the Olympic stadium, but I feel badly let down, along with other supporters, by the management. It is very sad indeed. I have come to the conclusion that some footballers are overpaid, some are oversexed and others underperform, unlike hon. Members.
	The winner of the Eurovision song contest, Azerbaijan, was a lot of rubbish. I think that Blue had the best record, and that Eurovision has become totally farcical. We should withdraw from the Eurovision song contest and have a proper contest between members of the G20 instead.
	I am looking forward to the Olympic games. As hon. Members know, Southend has the longest pier in the world and a wonderful athlete, Mark Foster, whom I hope will be allowed to run down the pier with the torch. It is all very well that the torch will be going to the constituency of the Minister of State, Department
	of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), but we want the flame to be shown in all its glory in Southend too.
	We recently held the Southend version of the Essex Factor. A young lady called Lucy Urquhart won the contest, and I have no doubt that she will become an international celebrity. Last week, I had the honour to be nominated by Naturewatch for an animal charity champion award. I pay tribute to Naturewatch. It is a wonderful organisation, and it brought to my attention the problem of puppy farming. A quarter of the British people own dogs, and it is a disgrace that we have these puppy farms churning out five or six litters each year. We should do something about it. The current law is not being enforced. It is no good having a review or putting in place a code of practice. We want the current law enforced.
	Last week, I think, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, came to the Dispatch Box to make a statement about using live animals in circuses. He was given a bit of a rough time. It is completely unacceptable that wild animals are used for circuses. I hope that the Minister here today will take that point back to the Department to ensure that we do not use live animals in circuses anymore.
	I was totally dissatisfied with the 2001 census in Southend, which left off 20,000 people—we have been paying for it for the past 10 years—and I am unhappy to tell the House that I do not believe that the present census was conducted satisfactorily in Southend either. The local authority, which has done a fantastic job, has assured me that it has not been well-handled by the Office for National Statistics, which seems to be in complete denial. Our Minister—the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd)—has done a wonderful job, but I fear that we shall be going to appeal on the census.
	We have the highest number of centenarians in the country, and buses are very important for elderly people. Sadly, we depend on subsidies to run certain bus routes, and we have just had the First bus company cut the No. 24 bus. I very much hope that the Minister responding to this debate will have a word with that organisation so that the No. 24 can be restored.
	I had the great honour of being the chairman of the all-party small business group. Small businesses throughout the country are struggling at the moment, particularly in Leigh-on-Sea. More publicity should be given to the reduction of rates for small businesses. We also need to do something about the empty property relief that we used to have.
	I welcome the English baccalaureate. It is good that we are concentrating on core subjects, but it is not acceptable that religious education is not included in the English baccalaureate. I have received representations from St Thomas More high school, St Bernard’s high school and Westcliff high school for boys, and I hope that we can have that restored.
	Jo-Jo Cranfield is a very talented athlete who was born with one arm. Hopefully she will be representing us in the Paralympics, but it is absolutely disgraceful that disability living allowance has been withdrawn from her, and it has also been suggested that she have a
	further part of her arm amputated. I hope that the Minister can do something about that.
	I am receiving increasing complaints about the Child Support Agency. It seems to be for ever blaming things on the computer—always a good excuse when things go wrong—so I hope that the Minister will have a word with the appropriate Department.
	Finally, as far as fisheries and fish discards are concerned, the common fisheries policy needs to be reformed urgently. It is an absolute disgrace that Leigh fishermen are being penalised by quotas and having to throw away far too many fish.
	I wish everyone a very happy Whitsun.

Valerie Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) and his skip around his constituency, which has left us all exhausted.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate, which I secured to draw attention to concerns raised by a number of my constituents—residents and business owners alike—in Walsall South. Many are finding the council’s approach to parking restrictions and enforcement extremely stressful. They are effectively being harassed as they go about their daily lawful business. I want to cover three areas: fines and enforcement; the council’s attitude; and the case of Cyril Randle.
	The story starts on 7 March, with parking charges being introduced on Ablewell street, Lichfield street and Station street. The restrictions cover a total of 310 parking spaces. Previously, people had been able to park free for two hours while they used local businesses on those streets and in the surrounding area. However, under the new rules, drivers are charged 20p for every 10 minutes, up to a maximum of two hours with no return. The charges are in force from Monday to Saturday between 8.30 am and 6.30 pm, excluding bank holidays. For now, there is nowhere free to park in town. There are fines of £50—they are reduced if paid before a certain time—yet the notices on the parking meters do not specify the amount. The restrictions and charges are very rigorously enforced. Several wardens walk down the affected streets each hour. Anyone late by one minute may be liable for a fine of £50. Some 670 drivers were issued with tickets within the first eight days of the charges being introduced, which equates to almost £3,500. Over the month from 7 March to 7 April, 1,700 parking tickets were issued. That equates to £18,000 of parking fines.
	Local businesses are suffering and have reported losses as a result of the new restrictions. I have received a petition, which I will present at the end of today’s debate, supported by more than 700 signatories who oppose the new rules from NE Sandwiches, Smart Cut, Super Car, Ablewell Fish Bar, Pure Therapy, Hair of the Dog, News and Booze, and Traditional Settings. Some have already experienced a drop in trade of up to 30%, and others as much as 50%. The owner of News and Booze said:
	“Nobody is going to come here and pay an extra 20p every ten minutes to buy a chocolate bar, a sandwich, or get a haircut.”
	The GP’s surgery on Lichfield street is also being affected, with one of my constituents given a fine even though
	he had an appointment there. There are a number of residential properties on Station street. No exemption is made for residents to park their cars or for people making deliveries. Life in Walsall town centre is getting difficult. Mr Papanicodemou told me:
	“If no action is taken, we feel that it will lead to the collapse of many established businesses, which would result in numerous empty shop premises. The eventual outcome of this will mean a loss of business rates to the council and also increased unemployment in the area.”
	What does the council say? Its justification is that it is looking at the competing demands and the current arrangements to deliver the maximum wider benefit, while also contributing to the cost of providing and maintaining parking facilities, but that is not what the businesses have asked for. Balancing the need to pay for and maintaining parking facilities is not a relevant consideration in making the decision on this scheme. There has been no consultation or justification for the scheme. The council accepts that there has been a decrease in the number of people using town centre car parks. Of course there has! Businesses have said so, and trading figures suggest that people are abandoning the town centre. Now the new art gallery is closed on Sundays. What incentive is there to go into the town centre?
	The case of Cyril Randle involves the salutary tale of an over-zealous enforcement officer and a council that would not back down until the court hearing, in the face of no evidence. Mr Randle came to my surgery to ask me to warn my constituents of what could happen to them if Ministers extend the powers of traffic wardens to cover offences such as littering or to stop moving vehicles involved in motoring offences. In 2006, Cyril, then aged 75, was apparently spotted spitting chewing gum from the window of a white Golf. The council had many of its facts wrong—not least that Mr Randle had not done the thing of which he was accused. On the day of the hearing, the council offered not to prosecute, on the grounds of Mr Randle’s age and ill health, but he wanted it on the record that he was innocent. Representatives of the council did not turn up. His solicitor asked that all charges be dropped, and the magistrate agreed that Mr Randle was innocent. Throughout the whole process, the council never issued a fine. It had no evidence. Indeed, the driver’s side window of Mr Randle’s car was broken and would not open.
	In conclusion, what is required is, first, public information about ending littering, rather than making vehicle owners responsible for litter thrown out of a car. Secondly, the council must not use car parking and enforcement for raising revenue. The Department for Transport’s operational guidance states:
	“The objective of civil parking enforcement should be 100 per cent compliance, with no penalty charges”.
	This was revised in November 2010. Instead, the council should allow people to pay for the time used, just as they do in large shopping malls, rather than giving them a short amount of time and penalising them for being one minute late. I have already written to the Government’s new high street tsar, Mary Portas, and invited her to visit the Walsall high streets. On behalf of my constituents, I say: give the highway back to the residents who pay their council tax, and give the high street back to the residents, so that they can linger, shop and visit the new art gallery.

Jonathan Lord: In the Backbench Business debate before the Christmas recess, I spoke about magistrates court closures, and about how the Government, instead of following their localism agenda, were unjustly moving services away from some local communities in the name of efficiency and effectiveness. I firmly believe that delivering services locally can enhance efficiency and effectiveness rather than being their antithesis. So, as the Government, the regions, and those who commission and provide health services grapple with difficult budgets and soaring demands, I urge the Government, and particularly the key health stakeholders in my county of Surrey, really to think through how community hospitals could help to deliver improved health care at a local and accessible level and in a cost-efficient way.
	My constituents in Woking, Pirbright and Normandy are generally well served when they travel out to the two acute hospitals located on either side of the constituency—St Peter’s in Ashford and the Royal Surrey in Guildford—but I am particularly fortunate to have Woking community hospital at the very heart of my constituency. It is an excellent local facility, receiving 110,000 visits each year. It provides assessment and rehabilitation, audiology, ophthalmology, physiotherapy and X-rays, and the nationally respected Bradley unit offers a neuro-rehabilitation service for patients with multiple sclerosis and other disorders.
	The doctors, nurses and staff are incredibly dedicated, and the hospital is also supported by the Friends of Woking Community Hospital, whose 350 members have raised hundreds of thousands of pounds to fund additional improvements and projects. These have included diagnostic equipment for the early detection of glaucoma, electronically operated beds and the construction of two conservatories that provide patients with a quiet, light-filled space. They even provide newspapers for long-stay patients of the Bradley neuro-rehabilitation ward. A major legacy has recently been bequeathed by Sir Alec Bedser, a long-term Woking resident, and I am sure his generosity will be put to good use. This amazing level of dedication and support is difficult, though not impossible, to replicate at the larger institutions and provides a real catalyst for future success.
	I would argue that community hospitals such as the one in Woking that already have a certain size and critical mass and already have the experience, the space, the good buildings and infrastructure to offer a broad range of services to a reasonably large local population—even though they are not immediately adjacent to a main acute hospital—have enormous potential to expand their existing offerings and deliver excellent health care right in the heart of their communities.
	What I am championing is the idea of a lead or a hub community hospital that offers a wider range of truly local health care, which could help to take some of the pressure off our over-burdened acute hospitals. For example, with the right medical staff on hand and good co-ordination with the ambulance service, most low-acuity ambulance calls could be dealt with at hub community hospitals. There could be an extension of medical cover at the hubs, including into the evenings and weekends, so that a wider range of sicker patients could be seen there. What about a rapid access centre, where a consultant would see and assess elderly people within one or two
	days to save them being sent to A and E or a busy acute hospital? Perhaps there is scope at one or two of our larger community hospitals for a temporary intoxication and related minor injuries unit. I believe that community health services can play a leading role in developing home nursing services to complement local hospitals so that patients can be released quicker to be supported at home, thus releasing hospital beds for new patients.
	To its credit, NHS Surrey has held discussions about the future for community health. Let us be clear, however: over the next few weeks or months, I would like to see three things. First, I want a firm commitment that Woking community hospital will be a lead or hub hospital, albeit initially on a pilot basis. Secondly, I want some details on the service provision that is going to be enhanced and how it can be integrated with other local services. Finally, I want a commitment to funding that recognises the important future role that community health services and key community hospitals should have in Surrey.
	The Government have increased the primary care trust’s baseline budget by over £30 million for this year, so the plan to reduce spending on community health services by 1.5% is worrying and difficult to justify. I believe that moving more activity to community settings has a major role to play in the future clinical and financial sustainability of the Surrey health system—a view that seems to be shared by NHS Surrey—but the rhetoric about treating more patients in the community must be backed by action and by funding.
	In the Woking community hospital, I have a very fine local facility. I want to see it enhanced over the coming years and I believe that NHS Surrey should support me in that endeavour. I believe that the Government and health authorities generally should also look at supporting community health right in the heart of their communities.

Nick Smith: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on what I see as a key public health issue. I shall consider the health impact of cold homes and fuel poverty. Parts of my constituency are more than 1,200 feet above sea level; our winters can be icy and our houses chilly. We wrap up warm in the valleys, but this is no substitute for a snug energy-efficient home.
	People know that cold homes are bad for our health, but cold can also kill. Michael Marmot, our pre-eminent public health expert has said
	“A winter death certificate may say ‘death due to heart attack’, but very often cold was a key factor.”
	This truth must be addressed to tackle the health impacts of cold homes. The most recent figures from the Welsh Assembly Government show that 25% of households in Wales are in fuel poverty, which means they have to spend 10% or more of their net income to heat their homes adequately.
	I recently attended the launch of the Marmot review of the health impacts of fuel poverty, and I want to highlight some of its findings. It found that fuel poverty
	“negatively affects children's educational attainment, emotional well-being and resilience.”
	It also found that
	“More than 1 in 4 adolescents living in cold housing are at risk of multiple mental health problems compared to 1 in 20”
	young people in warm housing. Sadly, at the most extreme end of the spectrum, there were 25,000 excess deaths due to cold in England and Wales in the winter of 2009-2010. Our rates are higher than those of many other European countries, including the most northerly Scandinavian countries. Poor heating is leading to poorer lives for far too many people. As Sir Michael Marmot says,
	“Inequalities that are avoidable are fundamentally unfair—fuel poverty is avoidable and it contributes to social and health inequalities.”
	Our challenge is to align our health and environmental agendas, and to create jobs as well. A Shelter Cymru report estimates the total cost of bringing all poor housing in Wales to an acceptable standard at around £1.5 billion, half of which is needed to deal with cold homes.
	Maximising take-up is an absolute must. National Government, the devolved Assembly, local authorities and health workers all have a role to play, and Members of Parliament can help with publicity. The coalition Government have said that they will deliver their green deal and the energy company obligation in the autumn of 2012, and the Minister confirmed to me last week that the ECO would be focused on fuel poverty and hard-to-treat homes. I think that the ECO should target a reduction in excess winter deaths, and in particular ensure that private sector tenants benefit from investment in energy-saving measures.
	UK-wide schemes will be important in helping Wales to meet its ambitious targets. The Welsh Assembly Government already give a high priority to fuel poverty reduction. Its strategy was launched at the Coed Cae estate in Nantyglo in my constituency. There, social and private housing is being retro-fitted with external cladding to make homes more fuel-efficient. I want the Government to work with the Welsh Assembly to deliver for the people of Wales. In Blaenau Gwent, Tai Calon, our largest provider of social housing, is spending £9 million on updating heating systems and working with E.ON to invest up to £10 million in energy efficiency, and 1,000 homes will be given new double-glazed windows. In an area of high unemployment, it is important to ensure that local companies are used for those upgrades.
	According to my local newspaper, the Gwent Gazette,
	“the Valleys consistently come top of the leagues that no one wants to win”,
	which include those for rates of heart disease and premature death. If the area is to move down those league tables, tackling fuel poverty must be an obligation. We must ensure that people take up what is on offer. I was appalled when National Energy Action told me that 10,000 households, a third of the Blaenau Gwent total, were missing out on their entitlement. That is the highest percentage in any constituency in Great Britain.
	MPs must play their part. I saw the benefits for pensioners recently when I visited Margaret Jones in Ebbw Vale, whose new central heating system had been installed under the Welsh Assembly’s scheme. NEA has a fuel poverty action guide that MPs can use to help constituents. I have written to the chief medical officer for Wales to ask what action is being taken, and whether the Aneurin Bevan Health Board is playing a referral role to help local people with home heating problems.
	Ambitious targets are critically important. The investment in public health, a priority for the 21st century, is as important as clean water and clean air were in the 20th century. I want the Government to be active and drive the agenda very strongly, and to work in partnership to make a massive improvement in the health and quality of life of the young, the chronically ill, the disabled and the elderly.

Justin Tomlinson: Working with the British Heart Foundation as part of the Heartstart UK campaign, I am calling for every child in the UK to be taught extended life support, so that when they leave school they are capable of saving a life. I want every child, and eventually every adult, in the UK to be able to do the following: recognise an emergency; contact the ambulance service immediately; administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and use an automated defibrillator. This campaign has received overwhelming support from across the medical, teaching and charitable communities, including from the following organisations: the British Medical Association, Research Councils UK, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Nursing, the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee, the PSHE Association, SAD.org.uk, and Cardiac Risk in the Young—CRY.
	I am passionate about the issue of extended life support—ELS—because as a teenager I found my father following his heart attack, so I know just how essential it is to have these skills. I am far from alone, as there are 30,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK each year. Currently, only about one in 12 sufferers will survive; that means 27,500 people are dying in the community, some of whom could have been saved. On average, it takes about six to 12 minutes for an emergency ambulance to reach a critically ill patient. For every minute that passes in cardiac arrest, the patient’s chance of survival falls by 10%. However, if immediate CPR—cardiopulmonary resuscitation—is given, survival rates increase threefold.
	The great shame is that most people are simply not able to help individuals in cardiac arrest. All too often, passers-by simply hope that someone else will act. By training and educating individuals we can radically alter this situation. I have heard horrific stories of crowds gathering around with no one willing to step in. Thankfully, the evidence clearly shows that with training, lay people can overcome the psychological barriers and manage the patient until more advanced and experienced personnel arrive.
	What I am asking for will take only 0.2% of the school year. It takes less than two hours fully to train a young person in ELS; that is the equivalent of just one physical education lesson. The training is straightforward. The recent meeting of the all-party group on heart disease, even I managed to breeze through it, as did my staff. The training can be broken into three levels, and even the most basic form of training can make a difference. For example, the body has enough oxygen in the blood so that even basic-compression CPR would be sufficient for 15 minutes, which is longer than the average ambulance response time. These skills will remain with people for the rest of their lives. We will instantly create a new generation of life savers, and they can pass their skills on, so it is a win-win situation. We have the evidence
	that this will work. It will allow us to change the prognosis for this devastating condition, saving thousands of lives a year.
	My request is not new. Norway, Denmark and France already have this as part of their national curricula. The American Heart Association has decreed that no child who is non-proficient in CPR should be able to graduate from secondary school. The British Heart Foundation already has more than 900 schools actively engaged in the Heartstart campaign, helping train thousands of children in these essential skills. This campaign needs to be extended to every school, and with that in mind I have already met Dr Peter Crouch of the Taw Hill medical practice, and Swindon borough council, to look at ways to ensure that it is extended to all the schools in my North Swindon constituency. I urge all MPs to do the same.

Chris Kelly: My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that I recently visited the St John Ambulance team in Brierley hill in my constituency to see the fantastic work that it does with schoolchildren on this very subject. Will he join me in congratulating that organisation on its work?

Justin Tomlinson: Absolutely; it serves as an excellent example and it should be encouraged. All MPs have a role to play in encouraging such work.
	Life support makes a real difference to survival rates. Training takes less than two hours, with the skills remaining for life. Through education and empowerment a new generation of life savers will be created, saving thousands of lives a year. I very much hope we can now ensure that this is made a compulsory element of a child’s education, and thereby create an army of life savers with the confidence and skills to save many lives.

John McDonnell: I wish to discuss the threat to heritage buildings in my constituency. Two months ago, a planning application to build a large hotel development encompassing a 500-year-old listed building, the Dower house, in the village of Harlington, was refused by the London borough of Hillingdon’s planning committee. Two weeks ago, the Dower house was consumed by fire and the police are investigating a suspected arson attack. This is just another example of what feels like the almost industrial-scale destruction of heritage buildings in my constituency.
	We all value a sense of community where we live and a sense of belonging, and part of that sense of community is about valuing our local heritage. Local buildings all tell their story of how our communities developed, and are cherished for their architectural beauty and histories— the stories they tell us. This country has a proud history of protecting its national heritage buildings and sites, and I pay tribute to the work of English Heritage and bodies such as the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, and the National Trust. But the battle to save our heritage is now being fought out ferociously in the suburbs of our cities and towns; it is the battle for local heritage buildings. These buildings are often unheralded and unsung wonders that lift our hearts when we discover them and their histories.
	Although valued by local people, local heritage buildings, especially those in London suburbs such as mine, are being hit by a tsunami of urban sprawl and intensive pressure from property development. In my area, many
	of those buildings are still just about standing as beacons of beauty and historical interest, but they are at severe risk, as listed by English Heritage, from developers and neglect by their owners, and they are vulnerable to council asset-stripping sales or a lack of public investment.
	I wish to cite three examples, in addition to Dower house, the first of which is the Harmondsworth great barn. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings described it as perhaps the greatest surviving mediaeval barn in the country, and John Betjeman dubbed it the “cathedral of Middlesex”. When its owner went into administration a number of years ago, the local council unfortunately failed to purchase it for £1 and it passed into the ownership of a Mr Robert Noonan. He owns it through a company called Harmondsworth Barn Ltd, based in Gibraltar. Under his ownership the barn has been neglected, and English Heritage now judges it to be in a poor condition. We have established the Friends of Harmondsworth Barn, and as a result of much effort and lobbying by local people, English Heritage has undertaken basic works to protect the barn, but is seeking a refund in the courts from its existing owners. English Heritage has put the barn on its at-risk register and we fear that, having saved the barn from a third runway, we could lose it as a result of neglect by its owner.
	My second example is Benlow works, a beautiful building visible from the railway in Hayes. It is the symbol of our local industrial heritage. It was the place where the Orchestrelle factory was; this is where people built the “Aeolian” organ players. It is a grade II listed building but it is in a sorry state of neglect and English Heritage has listed it as at risk. Our only information on the owner is that the building belongs to the Freshwater Group of Companies in Shaftesbury avenue, London, but the council and English Heritage have failed to get any response from the owners to a request to improve the building, despite offers of support, including an offer of a significant grant to refurbish the building.
	My third example is Golden Crescent library, a lovely building originally built by Mrs Emily Shackle in the late 19th century as a mission hall in memory of her late husband. Middlesex county council opened it as a local library in 1933 and it served generations of my constituents until last year, when Hillingdon borough council closed the library and opened a new one. Despite promises to preserve the older, listed building for community use, it is now to be sold off for development as flats and most of the building is to be demolished. The façade may remain but we will, unfortunately, lose the cherished building.
	I have given just a few examples of heritage buildings at risk in my area. Our community has tried everything to protect our heritage. Working with the excellent council officers Charmian Baker, Sarah Harper and Nairita Chakraborty, two years ago I convened a local community conference to discuss our local heritage. Local residents have gone out to map and research the buildings and sites to update the council’s heritage list. We have set up the Hayes and Harlington Conservation Panel, as well as friends groups for each of the buildings under threat. But despite all this we are still under attack, and I fear that we are, at times, fighting a losing battle.
	My appeal is therefore for assistance at all levels of government and from other agencies that could become involved. First, I appeal to the Minister for an urgent meeting to discuss the heritage sites in my constituency, because I fear that without urgent intervention we may lose some wonderful buildings. I fear the cuts of 30% that English Heritage faces, given that more than 400 buildings are at risk in London, but I appeal to English Heritage to refocus on the London suburbs such as Hayes and Harlington. My appeal to the local council is for it to stop asset stripping and to work with the local community to protect our heritage buildings. My appeal to the owners of these buildings, particularly those I have named, is for them to contact me and work with our local community to preserve these buildings. We need powers, resources and co-operation from all levels of government and society if we are to preserve our local heritage. Once demolished, such buildings are lost for ever for future generations. We cannot let this happen.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. The time limit is six minutes, but I emphasise that the wind-ups will begin at 6.40 and eight Members are seeking to catch my eye. Hon. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves, and a certain self-denying ordinance would be helpful.

Stephen Gilbert: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is not the only one who has difficulty protecting his local heritage. We have that difficulty in rural areas too. Indeed, I rise tonight to express the deep anger, disappointment and dismay across my constituency that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has approved a mass burn incinerator for the village of St Dennis in the heart of the constituency.
	There is anger because a Government who make much of their localism agenda have overruled the wishes of the local parish council, the former district council and the former county council’s planning committee, and ignored representations from Cornwall’s six MPs. There is disappointment because the Government have fundamentally undermined their claims to be the greenest Government ever. There is dismay because the incinerator is the wrong solution to Cornwall’s waste problems and might dominate the small village of St Dennis for four decades to come.
	Let me put the incinerator in context. At 120 metres, its stack is twice the height of this building’s famous Clock Tower, which houses Big Ben, and taller than the Statue of Liberty. It will dominate a small Cornish village and will be seen from many of Cornwall’s beauty spots. As we enter an era of global warming, Cornwall’s incinerator will belch out thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions and other harmful particulates.
	We know that inefficient incineration, in which the energy is not used, does not move waste up the waste hierarchy. It remains a disposal in the same category as landfill. It is therefore out of step with Government policy, but that is what is happening in Cornwall, and that is what the Secretary of State has approved. The incinerator will generate more than 200 extra fuel-guzzling lorry movements on Cornwall’s lanes and roads each and every day. It will depress reuse and recycling rates.
	Incineration has never been the right solution for Cornwall, only the quick fix for a council caught in a blind panic.
	The difficult circumstances in St Dennis mask the great strength of the people. They have put up a tremendous fight against the plans in what has always been a David and Goliath situation. They are not nimbys and since 2005 they have only ever wanted a modern solution to a modern problem. They have fought with only half the information that other sides in the dispute have.
	May I ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House directly whether waste private finance initiative contracts and the potential liabilities to which they expose local authorities will now be material considerations in planning policy, as the inspector’s report suggests? Does that not fundamentally undermine the plan-led approach that the Government want to adopt? How can development be plan-led if local people who have no control over the contracts signed by a local authority will always be trumped by the provisions of that contract? How can it be right for a document for use in a public inquiry to be redacted? There should be no document needed for a public inquiry that is not available in full to all participants. I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend asked his colleagues in the Department to write to me on those points.
	The community in mid-Cornwall is angry. Our faith in the democratic process has been shaken to its core. How can it be, when we have won our case every time we have put it to local decision makers, that our Secretary of State, who is responsible for localism, has overruled the local decision makers whom he says he seeks to empower? There is no doubt that Friday was a sad day for democracy in Cornwall, for Cornwall’s beautiful environment, and for future generations who will look back, bemused, at the folly that has been imposed on them.

Jack Lopresti: I, too, would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I apologise to any Members who were present when I spoke in the pre-recess debate last month, as I must return to the issue of antisocial behaviour which I raised on that occasion. After I last spoke on the topic, I received a full and considered response from the Minister with responsibility for crime prevention, for which I thank him. I am glad that he agreed that
	“Much of what is described as ‘anti-social behaviour’ is actually crime, and it has a huge impact on the quality of life of millions of decent people”.
	The Government are on the right track in recognising that the current measures for dealing with antisocial behaviour are bureaucratic and ineffective and that the solution lies in giving the police and local agencies more effective powers to deal with the problem at a much more local level.
	I am saddened to report to the House that the constituents I mentioned in my last speech on this topic are still suffering at the hands of a few thugs who believe that they can do as they please and that they are above the law in waging their campaigns of intimidation and abuse. Just last week a crowd of about 20 were involved in intimidating a resident who said, “I have lived here all my life and this has got to stop!” The crowd followed my constituent down the road to his home where more youths arrived in two cars. Neighbours
	called the police who, instead of dispersing the crowd or, heaven forbid, making arrests for disturbance of the peace at the very least, simply chatted with the crowd in a manner that my constituent described as jolly and friendly. My constituent reported the matter to the district chief superintendent, who replied that he had asked a colleague to respond, but no response has been received so far. I am hopeful that when a copy of
	Hansard
	arrives on his desk, sent from my office, the response will be forthcoming more quickly.
	I look forward to the Home Office’s response to the public consultation, but in the interim I expect the local police and local agencies to make full use of the current powers for tackling antisocial behaviour and to offer the most effective means available of protecting victims and communities. It is easy to see why there is a perception in some quarters that nothing can be done about this sort of crime, but something can be done, as it was done in New York by Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In one of the most crime-infested cities in the world, he achieved real success. He realised that
	“Reducing the number of crimes wouldn’t be enough: people had to see improvement, not just hear about it. If crime went down but the existing amount of pushing and shoving, urinating on the streets, and other quality-of-life issues remained the same, we would never have a convincing case that life was better. We had to get people to be safe and to feel safe.”
	When people feel safe, antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated by the community. Only when the local police achieve that will we see the trends of antisocial behaviour begin to reverse. I have more to say but I know we are stuck for time so I shall finish.

Jesse Norman: I would like to update the House about the progress on a subject that has become something of a preoccupation of mine of late: the private finance initiative. Members will be familiar with the details of the PFI, including its cost, complexity and lack of transparency and the level of advisory fees involved. The issue affects almost every constituency in the land and therefore almost every Member of the House.
	As hon. Members will be aware, there have been far too many scandals for comfort over the years. Let me refresh our collective memory with a few choice examples. The Ministry of Defence pays £22 for each of its 100 W light bulbs. The Public Accounts Committee recently found that the project to widen the M25 took nine years simply to procure, that the cost was likely to be in the region of £1 billion too much and that the advisory fees alone were in the order of £80 million. It is an interesting fact that under the Building Schools for the Future programme, secondary schools were required to have atriums, as though they were multinational corporations, at colossal cost. One might ask why that should be so, but so it was.
	Members can take their pick as to their preferred PFI scandal, so it is little wonder that the campaign to secure savings on the PFI now has 70 Members from across all major parties in the House. The campaign is not about tearing up contracts, but about renegotiating them, locating savings without a loss of services and sharing future rewards more equally with the taxpayer. Since the campaign was launched last year, we have made huge progress. The Department of Health is looking very hard, through what it has referred to as its
	“deep dive”, at its costs at Romford hospital, from which it hopes to infer a programme of cost savings that can run across the entire PFI hospital network. The MOD has reopened contracts at Corsham and two other facilities. The Public Accounts Committee is holding a hearing next month with key players in the industry to find out what has gone wrong, and I am pleased to say that the Treasury Committee—my own Committee—has held an inquiry and is holding a hearing on that inquiry’s findings, focusing on alternatives to the PFI.
	In recent months I have had extensive meetings with industry, with Ministers and officials at the Treasury and Cabinet Office, and with the National Audit Office. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for his intervention in that regard. I have had meetings extensively with the different players in the industry—the contractors, the developers, the banks, the service providers and the advisers—and I have been surprised by the positive response from those organisations. There is clearly a high level of interest in working with the Government to remedy some of the evils of PFI over recent years and setting the stage for the much improved use of private finance in the future.
	However, it is important for colleagues to note that some firms remain outside the process. I will mention some in particular. Innisfree, which has been a very big PFI provider, has decided to bury its head in the sand. That organisation has been associated with some of the most lucrative deals for the private sector. It had a profit last year of 53% of its turnover. Sodexho is a very large national service provider, whose exorbitant costs I drew to the attention of the House last year, in relation to Hereford hospital in my constituency.
	I draw the attention of the House to the performance of the advisers as a group—the law and accountancy firms, which have not participated so far in the process. It is striking that no matter how many transactions are done, the advisory fees on PFI deals have not fallen at all over the past 15 years.
	I shall be approaching the Backbench Business Committee on 7 June for a full debate on the subject of PFI. I very much hope that as many Members as possible will join the campaign if they have not already done so, support my approach to the Committee, and speak in that debate.

Gordon Henderson: Two weeks ago the Danish company Vestas announced that it had signed an option for 70 hectares of land at the port of Sheerness. That option opens up the possibility of Vestas setting up a factory in my constituency to manufacture its next generation wind turbine, the V164-7.0. Vestas is considering locating in the UK because of the immense growth prospects for offshore wind-generated energy in this country, but let us not be under any illusions: Vestas has plenty of alternative options on the continent.
	Vestas has already made a substantial investment just to secure the land option in Sheerness, and I am convinced that it is ready to move that option to a full lease as long as it sees firm commitments from customers. Of course, potential customers will not be willing to provide those buying commitments unless there is sufficient market
	and regulatory certainty to ensure a long-term viable business case. I am calling on the Government to provide that certainty and to create the conditions that would enable Vestas to secure the orders for the V164, which would give it the confidence to turn the option for land at Sheerness into a full lease, start building its factory and create much needed jobs in my constituency.
	I have already discussed the situation with Vestas and it is looking for a number of assurances from the Government before sealing the deal. It wants to see a support mechanism that is specifically adapted to the needs of the wind industry, as opposed to trying to make wind fit within a one-size-fits-all solution. Such a support mechanism is key to making offshore wind a long-term, cost-competitive component of the energy mix, and needs to be designed very quickly and set at a level that drives continued investment from Vestas customers. In addition, Vestas need reassurances that the UK’s offshore wind ambitions will not be moderated. It wants to see mechanisms in place to avoid any prolonged hiatus in investments as a result of the electricity market reform proposals. It wants the Government to set firm and ambitious targets, specifically for offshore wind generation, and not only to 2020, but beyond to 2030. Finally, it wants timely decisions on planning applications not only for offshore projects but for the enabling infrastructure, such as grid connections and substations, which would provide more market certainty and increase investor confidence.
	If Vestas sets up its factory on Sheppey, an estimated 2,000 direct jobs and 1,000 indirect jobs will be created. On behalf of all those in my constituency who would benefit from those jobs, I would like to ask several questions. First, how do the Government plan to provide Vestas with the necessary conditions that would encourage it to make that major investment in the UK? Secondly, what are they doing to overcome the obstacles that the offshore wind industry faces? Thirdly, what are they doing to ensure that investment like that proposed by Vestas comes to the UK and does not go to countries such as Germany or France, which no doubt would welcome it with open arms? Fourthly, how can the UK maintain its position as global leader in offshore wind energy and secure the jobs and economic benefits that go with it?
	Fifthly, why are the Government opting for an electricity market reform package that appears to be focused on getting new nuclear power stations off the ground, rather than putting more emphasis on getting investment into renewables? Sixthly, given that the Government’s £60 million so-called ports fund, which is supposed to help upgrade port infrastructure to meet the needs of the offshore wind industry, applies only to areas with assisted status, how do the Government intend to create a level playing field so that we in Sittingbourne and Sheppey can secure Vestas investment for an area of high deprivation that just happens to be located in the so-called wealthy south-east? Finally, what can the Government do to help de-risk the potential investment by Vestas? I appreciate that those are not questions to which my right hon. Friend the Minister has ready answers, but I very much hope that he will ensure that the relevant Minister provides a response as a matter of urgency.

Penny Mordaunt: In my first year in this place I have often boasted of Portsmouth’s
	assets: its superb natural harbour, which will soon host our magnificent aircraft carriers; its heritage; its high-tech industries; its entrepreneurial and hard-working people; and its remarkable natural history—after all, a third of the world’s migrating Brent geese cannot all be wrong.
	Given those advantages, one wonders why we have not made more progress in regenerating parts of the city. In fact, there have been serious obstacles to growth in Portsmouth, but happily they are not insurmountable. However, we might need the Treasury to give us a leg up. We have suffered from the lack of a clear and articulated vision, which is unforgivable when one considers the heritage on which we can build a strong narrative for future development.
	Portsmouth is the maritime heart of this country. We have the wonderful historic dockyard and the recent developments at Gunwharf and the Spinnaker Tower, but that cannot be the limit of our aspirations. We must think about the whole area; not only Portsmouth, but Fareham and Gosport. What do we want the harbour to become? We should aim high, because with the list of assets I have mentioned we could be one of the world’s premier destinations for historical tourism and maritime pursuits. I believe that the key to unlocking the potential of the harbour and to achieving a step change in regeneration for our city lies in the various surplus defence estates in Portsmouth and the surrounding areas.
	One of the challenges we face is the cost of maintaining the number of historic and often listed buildings in the dockyard. That is necessary but expensive work. Pleasingly, the Government have reiterated their commitment to all three naval bases, which strategically is the right thing to do, but it is vital that those defence assets have the financial wherewithal to “wash their faces”, as the burden of heritage maintenance is an unwelcome expense when the Royal Navy has so many other commitments. Those wonderful buildings should be preserved, used and enjoyed, and there is the commercial interest and the willingness of the Ministry of Defence to make that happen locally. Alas, rules designed to ensure fair competition demand such a huge investment from would-be developers, without any guarantee of success, that Portsmouth’s historical dockyard continues to stand empty. Local residents and tourists lose out, as they cannot enjoy beautifully restored historic buildings, facilities—homes, hotels, shops and museums—or the jobs that would be created; the city loses out, as it is denied the economic growth and investment that would obviously result; the MOD and the Royal Navy lose out, as millions that might have been spent on the naval dockyard are being spent on the historic estate; and English Heritage loses out as precious listed buildings drift into decay.
	I am sure that Portsmouth will not be an isolated case, and the Treasury needs to realise that investors will not hold their millions in reserve, waiting for the day when common sense prevails. They will take their money elsewhere, and not necessarily in Britain. We must make investment easier, and that will require a strategic alliance of industry, civic authorities, the Royal Navy, the MOD, the heritage sites and other organisations. On the current rules of engagement, however, such a vision and alliance is not possible.
	A full competitive tendering process for such developments is not practical: the costs would be prohibitive, because it is so complex, and it would require the
	co-ordination of many stakeholders. It is not realistic for such a chain of contributors to commit themselves without any assurance of success, and the project stands a much better chance of being delivered successfully if, from the start, a close relationship can be established between the stakeholders and such a strategic alliance.
	To insist on the full competitive tendering process would inevitably mean the project being broken down into smaller schemes, and that would be the death knell for integrated regeneration in the north and south of the city and through to Gosport. It would certainly remove any hope of coherent integration between military and civil needs. That is an important part of the regeneration programmes for cities and towns where the Royal Navy is the central employer, estate owner and provider of further employment and opportunity. Development needs to be undertaken on such a scale to achieve the necessary regeneration that will drive changes in residential and visitor perceptions.
	Today, I ask the Treasury to consider increasing the geographical scope of the national insurance contribution holiday to some areas of the south-east, where extra help is needed and the potential for growth is considerable. In my view, Portsmouth is top of the list. I ask the Treasury also to recognise the damage that out-of-control business rates are doing in Portsmouth and elsewhere, and to work to provide incentives for local authorities to address the problem; to work with the MOD to ensure that bureaucracy and costs are reduced for potential development of surplus MOD estates; to examine how it can support the emergence of strategic alliances throughout all sectors in order to make such regeneration affordable and achievable; and finally to meet me and potential partners in such an alliance in Portsmouth to discuss those issues in more detail. I hope that that meeting can take place in Portsmouth, so that the Treasury can see the energy, drive, vision and potential of our city.

Thomas Docherty: I begin with the case of Ian Elam of Dunfermline, who is the sole carer for his wife, Jeanie, and has looked after her for about 10 years without any respite. She suffers from multiple sclerosis and requires 24-hour care. At the end of 2009, Mr Elam was persuaded by Fife council social workers to make use of a respite opportunity, and his wife entered respite care at Queen Margaret hospital. Regrettably, the staff could not cope with Mrs Elam, and her husband had to attend to her needs for about 12 hours per day during her stay, which continued until February 2010.
	Unfortunately, the Department for Work and Pensions has decided that Mr Elam should lose many of the benefits that he receives during his respite from caring. I am sure the House will be surprised to learn that, when people who provide 24-hour care take a short period of respite, they lose all their benefits. After all, no one in this House or, indeed, in the Press Gallery would expect to take unpaid holiday. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Deputy Leader of the House made some inquiries about the state of the case and report back to me at a later date.
	It is fitting that I follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), as I too have a naval interest. Just this weekend, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter
	Luff), who is responsible for defence procurement, wrote to many Members to inform them of the outcome of the Government’s strategic defence and security review and the refitting and basing of the surface and submarine fleets. Two Type 23 frigates, HMS Somerset and HMS Richmond, which had been scheduled for refitting at Rosyth dockyard, are now to be refitted at Devonport. I do not oppose the move—after all, Devonport has a large hole in its order book thanks to the decisions of this Government—but there is uncertainty about the future of Rosyth dockyard.
	I am sure the Deputy Leader of the House is also aware of the ongoing uncertainties at DM Crombie, which faces an uncertain future when the last of the surface fleet is fitted out at Rosyth at the end of 2013, because there is a long gap until—I hope—the Queen Elizabeth class comes into service. I would therefore be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House ascertained whether the Minister would be prepared to meet me to discuss the long-term future of Rosyth and Crombie.
	In my maiden speech, I talked about Longannet power station, which is now the only bidder for the carbon capture and storage project. It has waited 12 months for a decision from this Government, and there does not appear to be one in sight. I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House updated the House on what progress has been made on carbon capture and storage at Longannet and whether the relevant Minister of State would be prepared to meet me to discuss it.
	The House will recall that I have led the charge against ship-to-ship transfers in the Firth of Forth. This decision lies with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning). I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House urged him to make a decision as speedily as possible when we come back after the recess, as the uncertainty is helping no one.

Mel Stride: My constituency is a highly rural one in which agriculture matters a great deal. It matters for jobs on farms and in the processing and distribution sectors—and of course farmers are the stewards of our land and promote tourism too. Food matters. In terms of food security, there are pressures on our population worldwide, with 6.8 billion people today, rising to 9.2 billion in 2050. The amount of land per person that was available for cultivation in the 1950s was 0.5 hectares—it is now just half that amount, and it will be down to a third by 2050. Global warming will also make farming more problematic, as will changes in dietary habits as we get wealthier and eat more meat that requires more land to produce it. That is a huge challenge.
	I wish to address one or two important points regarding the challenges that face my farming community in Central Devon. Bovine TB has led to the slaughtering of 25,000 cattle, last year alone, at a cost of £63 million—something that scars the farming families who are affected. I am afraid that the previous Government sat on their hands when the Independent Scientific Group’s report was published. We now await with great interest the Government’s announcement, which is due shortly, on whether action will be taken on the provision of badger
	control licences. I urge them to take positive action in that respect. Incidentally, that has the support of the British Veterinary Association and the British Cattle Veterinary Association.
	Milk prices are a huge issue, particularly for dairy farmers in the south-west. As recently as this February, the National Farmers Union reported that the cost of milk production was 29.1p per litre, which is above the farm-gate price that farmers are receiving. Much has been said in this Chamber about the importance of restraining the power of the supermarkets and creating an ombudsman for that purpose. I urge the Government to make good on their commitment for a groceries code adjudicator.
	On red tape, we said in the coalition agreement:
	“We will reduce the regulatory burden on farmers”.
	I welcome Richard Macdonald’s report and urge the Government to respond to the 200 recommendations that he made by bringing forward as many of those changes as possible, including moving towards risk-based inspection of farms to reduce their onerous nature to as limited a number of farms as possible.
	My final plea is for hill farmers. Hill farm incomes in 2008-09 were just £25,700 compared with over £50,000 for other farms. Hill farming is one of the most difficult forms of farming in our country; it is very tough. These are proud, resilient, hard-working people who need our support by continuing to support the higher level stewardship arrangements and stock rearing and suckler cows on the moors. I ask the Minister to let me know what the Government’s thinking is on section 68 funding from the EU, which could be directed specifically into hill farming.
	I am anxious that other Members have an opportunity to speak, so I will leave it at that.

Priti Patel: I will canter through some topical issues that affect families in the Witham constituency.
	First, I bring good news for one Minister. I put on record my thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Transport for listening to the concerns of my constituents and removing the Greater Anglia rail franchise from National Express East Anglia. Its service was appalling. She genuinely listened to my constituents’ concerns and did something about them. With the publication of the McNulty report and the ongoing work on the new long-term franchise arrangements, I make a plea to Ministers to put customer service and value for money first when awarding franchises.
	Another issue is the NHS reforms. My constituency has no hospital and it asks for no hospital. However, it has two primary care trusts that have spent a lot of money over the past decade investing in bureaucrats and managers while my constituents have been left high and dry without treatments and access to local health care. That will change with the reforms. I press Ministers to stick with the principles of the Health and Social Care Bill and ensure that real investment can be made at the front line, rather than being spent on management and bureaucracy.
	I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have had difficulties with planning issues in their constituencies, particularly in relation to Traveller sites. I have endless
	issues with Traveller sites and planning applications in my constituency. Ministers have had plenty of correspondence with me about this issue. I recognise that there is currently a consultation that relates in particular to Traveller circulars. There are serious concerns on this issue and I hope that Ministers will take representations from Members of Parliament and local communities, perhaps as part of the Localism Bill, and listen to genuine local concerns.
	On small businesses, I have spoken tirelessly about the fact that 83% of the jobs in my constituency are in small and medium-sized enterprises. That is a tremendous figure and I would like it to be even higher. One problem with trying to make it higher is that banks are still not lending money to small businesses and enterprise is still being stifled. I make a plea to Ministers to ensure that this matter is given priority so that our wealth creators can get the private sector growing, create more jobs, and get our economy back on track.
	My constituents frequently raise the sentencing of offenders and the criminal justice system with me. They are appalled by the waves of soft justice that we have seen in recent years and that it is now almost impossible to lock up criminals. In the view of my constituents, prison is there to punish people, to act as a deterrent and to keep the public safe. I urge the Government to use the opportunity of the sentencing review to restore public confidence by bringing in tougher and longer sentences for criminals to protect the public and victims.

Bob Blackman: In the short time that I have, I wish to raise three specific issues.
	The first issue is the plight of the Ashiana charitable trust, to which I was proud to give an award last night at the national Kids Count awards. It enables disabled young people and people with learning difficulties to fulfil an active life, and entertains people throughout London and beyond. It is sad to report that Harrow council has decided to remove all funding from that organisation. That is a national scandal that I hope the council will change, even at this late stage.
	Secondly, I am a passionate about ensuring that there is growth in the private sector. I was therefore amazed to be told by a constituent who wants to set up a business in my constituency that he has attempted to register for VAT, and yet has been put on hold by the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for 18 months. He would employ more than 10 people locally, and he has done the right thing in trying to register for VAT, but the answer that he has been given is that he should charge customers for VAT, retain the money and then hand it over to HMRC when he is finally given registration. He wishes to seek a business-to-business arrangement, but the other businesses require a VAT number before they will do business with him. He has been forced into a position where he cannot get premises and cannot buy vehicles, because he cannot afford to get the loan that is required until he is VAT registered. HMRC is acting as a direct obstacle to the setting up of that business in my constituency. I trust that we can see an end to that.
	The third plight that I will allude to briefly has been exposed nationally. My constituent, Yvonne Alpagot, came to see me about Brentsouth Trading Ltd, which operates out of a garage in Southall. I have also raised
	this matter with the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). My constituent found the website because she has a car with a Renault engine. The company purported to be expert in sorting out Renault engines, but she was scandalously treated. When she finally got to see her vehicle again, the engine had been removed and placed on the back seat, spilling oil all over the seat. The car had been damaged out of all proportion, and when she sought to recover the vehicle she was physically threatened by individuals in the company. She took them to court and won, but unfortunately they had closed the company just a week before she got to court.
	After doing some research, Yvonne Alpagot discovered that more than six companies were operating out of a single site, and curiously enough, each of them had a number of the same directors. She found that they had closed down companies and opened them again, leaving hundreds of customers high and dry. On many occasions, they had closed down companies with court judgments against them. That is a scandal, and it needs to be put right. We need to ensure that when companies close down and there are court judgments against their directors, the directors are not allowed to start up another company performing the same function on the same site. We need to rectify that scandal.
	I could go into great detail about that case, but I recognise that time is against me. What I seek, as I have said before at Question Time, is for such phoenix operations to be stopped in their tracks, so that innocent people who have no idea that those companies are trading illegally are not forced to pay thousands of pounds to companies that should not be operating in the first place.

David Heath: I noticed when I looked at the list of Members who were going to take part in the debate, and examined their background in “Dod’s”, that the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt)—I do not intend to embarrass her in any way—was once a magician’s assistant, which is perhaps not widely known. It seemed me that I needed at least a magician’s assistant to answer all the points that have been raised in the debate. As usual, I will not be able to do so adequately, and as usual I will ensure that the various Departments that are relevant to the points that have been made write to the Members concerned in due course.
	Let us canter through the 18 contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who is not in his place at the moment, talked about the ongoing controversy about privacy and the difficulty of policing online social sites such as Twitter. He is absolutely right that it is very difficult, but that does not mean that there is no responsibility on either those sites or the people who use them to comply with the law. We have said previously, and I say again, that what is illegal offline is illegal online. The criminal law applies as much to those sites as it does to anyone else, and we look forward to the work of the Joint Committee that is being set up to examine those matters and the wider privacy and defamation issues.
	The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) gave us a wonderful look at his constituency and explained the contribution that it could make to this country’s tourism industry. I have been a tourist in
	his constituency, so I feel rather superior. I took a weekend in north Kent recently, and I am familiar with Hall Place. What I did not know was that his constituency shares something with mine, because it contains an edifice that was built as penance for the murder of Thomas à Becket. In fact, the entire village in which I live was built as penance by Henry II, so the hon. Gentleman and I have something in common.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the capacity of our tourism, both internationally and within this country, and said that it was not just the obvious places that had something to offer. He was absolutely right, and I will ensure that he gets a full response in due course from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
	The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) raised two very important points as far as his constituents are concerned: the closures of Edale House and of the Ancoats centre. I am not clear on the extent to which those decisions are irrevocable, but it is essential that local people have a proper input into such key decisions on their health provision. That is the entire thrust of what the Government are trying to do. We want to ensure that decisions are not top-down edicts, but that they are taken on the basis of the advice of local clinicians and the local people involved. If the Government can assist in ensuring that those matters are discussed in the context of what is right for his constituency and the people whom he represents, I am sure we would be happy to do so.
	I shall leave the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) to one side for a moment, and address the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who spoke about the difficulties of the parking regime in Walsall. In fact, I was well aware of those problems, because I have been reading the correspondents’ pages in the Walsall Advertiser, which draw attention to exactly the point she raised. Of course, that is a local council issue, and there is a limit to what the Government can or would wish to do, because such matters are best decided at community level. However, clearly, she has taken the opportunity to represent the views of many of her constituents, and as I understand it, she will present a petition later, which will include the views of News and Booze, which I notice decries its name by selling choc bars and hair cuts. I am sure that she represents what a lot of people in her constituency think on the subject of parking in Walsall.
	I recall the contribution of the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) to a previous debate on courts. His remarks today on the importance of Woking community hospital were entirely consistent with that. He is working with the grain in this instance, because the indication is that it is felt that that hospital can play a leading role in providing health services in that part of the county of Surrey. I notice that the Surrey primary care trust has made that clear as part of its forward programme, but he is right to emphasise that local hospitals can do things that the big acute hospitals cannot do, and that they can act as a hub for provision. I am glad he took the opportunity to say that.
	The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) talked about fuel poverty. He may or may not know that that subject is dear to my heart and to the heart of the hon. Member for Southend West—he has previously
	presented legislation on fuel poverty, and I presented a Bill on fuel poverty in the last Session of the previous Parliament. I am afraid that my Bill foundered at the hands of the previous Government, who were not quite as keen on dealing effectively with fuel poverty as the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and I are. However, this Government are making real progress. The hon. Gentleman was right to talk about the impact of fuel poverty on communities such as the one he represents. One thing that pleases me about our proposals is that they deal not just with the houses that it is easy to deal with, but those that are more difficult to treat. Some of the residential stock of which he spoke—in Nantyglo, for instance—probably falls into the latter category. It is essential that we do not simply go for the low-hanging fruit and the easy pickings, but ensure that we extend defences against fuel poverty to all parts of our community. I applaud him for making those points.
	The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke about emergency life-saving skills; that point has been raised several times recently. He is obviously right. It is essential that young people have the opportunity to learn those skills so that they can put them to good use at a later stage. I noticed that this point was raised in Education questions yesterday. I think the Secretary of State agreed that it needs to be addressed and that we need to ensure that young people have access to that information. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will continue his campaign, although whether the teaching of those skills should be a formal part of the national curriculum, or whether there are other ways of providing them in the school programme, is a moot point. However, it is clear that young people ought to have them in their skill range for when they leave school, so that they can use them when needed—and none of us ever knows when they will be needed.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about heritage buildings in his constituency. I am getting to know his constituency rather better having had two of these debates with him. What has happened at Dower house, in particular, sounds very odd. I understand that it is still subject to a police investigation, so we shall see what happens with that in due course. He mentioned other buildings in his constituency that he felt were at risk, including the Harmondsworth great barn, the Golden crescent library and others. English Heritage has indicated to me that it would be happy to meet him and others in his constituency to discuss these issues. I will also extend that request to a Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to see whether we can arrange something. I know that the Department, English Heritage and the Crown Prosecution Service take heritage crime very seriously. It happens far too easily: an important building suddenly goes up in smoke, often following failed planning permission. We have got to stop that; we have got to take effective measures. I am sure he will find that he is speaking to people who agree with the basic principles he has outlined.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) is clearly very upset with the decision taken on the incinerator at St Dennis. I cannot tell him anything about the decision-making process of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and nor should I say anything, because he will have acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when making that decision. However, I will ensure that
	the points my hon. Friend raised on behalf of his constituents are communicated to the Secretary of State. I do not know whether things have changed since I sat on an authority with responsibility for such matters, but I seem to remember that there was a two-stage process: planning permission followed by an operating licence. When granting an operating licence, further restrictions or conditions could be applied. I might be wrong, however. I will certainly ensure that his points are raised with the relevant Minister.
	The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) spoke about antisocial behaviour, which is the curse of many of our constituencies and causes much unhappiness for many of our constituents. He is right to raise it. I am pleased that he got a good reply from the Minister concerned when he raised it previously. It sounds like issues remain to be resolved in his constituency, however, and it would be sensible were he to raise them directly with Chief Constable Colin Port, because it is clear that he is not yet satisfied with the police response. It is for the chief constable to respond on those matters.
	The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) raised again the issue of private finance initiatives, on which he is fighting an excellent campaign. The key concern is value for money, yet it has become transparently obvious that many PFI schemes simply did not provide that. The Government are committed to ensuring that we get value for money whenever we enter a scheme of that kind. I know that he has had discussions—in fact, he mentioned them—with the Chancellor and the Commercial Secretary, and that he feels that real progress is being made. I hope that progress continues and we ensure that if we use that form of financing for public projects, it is not simply a way of getting the amounts involved off the balance sheet, but a way of ensuring that people have the services they need at a cost that is commensurate with their value. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue his campaign to achieve that.
	The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) is someone else whose constituency I feel I know much more about than I did a few weeks ago, having replied to a debate with him only recently. I know how important the Vestas investment in Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey is to his constituents. He asked me a series of questions, but accepted that I would probably be unable to answer him. He is absolutely right—I cannot—but I will ensure that his questions are communicated to the relevant Minister. What I can say is that the Government are talking to Vestas about how to assist the investment that it is thinking of making. There is a problem, in that the £60 million is not available because Sheerness is not an assisted area. There are EU state aid rules and there are difficulties getting around them, but the Government are very keen on assisting the investment, as the hon. Gentleman is, and I hope we can do everything possible to make it a reality.
	The hon. Member for Portsmouth North talked about Portsmouth and the issues there. One thing that I had not known until I read the background notes to this debate is that Portsmouth is the most densely populated city outside inner London. Again, not many people know that. We need to ensure that development continues in Portsmouth. She raised the significant issue of the relationship with the Ministry of Defence, and how it might be brought on board with the local enterprise partnership and the other keys to growth in the area. If
	there is anything we can do to make that happen more effectively, that would make obvious sense for the interests of her constituents. I will draw the issue to the attention not only of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but of the MOD. Hopefully we can make progress. She would also like to talk to the Treasury about national insurance contributions relief, and I will pass on that request too.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) raised a number of issues. I cannot give an answer to his point about his constituent Mr Elam and respite care, but I will ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions does. As for the shipyards in his constituency, I think he recognises the fact that not every refit can take place in Rosyth—some are taking place in Devonport—but there is work there that has been commissioned by this Government and that will continue, which is good news for Rosyth. As for Longannet, this is a key issue that Ministers in the Department of Energy and Climate Change have been directly involved in. He asked for the relevant Minister of State to visit his constituency. I am sure that the Minister concerned would very much like to do so if he could, but the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary both already have, so the hon. Gentleman has not been neglected.
	The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) talked about farming issues. He will celebrate, as I will on behalf of my constituents, today’s publication of the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. We are making real progress.
	The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked about various things. She was kind enough to say thank you to the Minister of State, Department for Transport for her work on rail services. She talked about Travellers sites, small businesses and sentences—issues that I know will continue to crop up. As far as hospitals are concerned, it is absolutely clear that the main thrust of the policy will survive whatever changes are made to the details.
	The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about HMRC registration for VAT and a trust in his constituency, which are points that I am afraid I cannot answer in full.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) listed about 20 things in his speech, but I cannot talk about them now. Let me tell him, however, that I will spend the next couple of weeks writing to the relevant Departments about all those issues. Others will have other priorities, but I—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Draft Defamation Bill (Joint Committee)

Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 23 May that, notwithstanding the resolution of this House of 24 March, it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill that it should report on the draft Bill by 31 October.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills (Joint Committee)

Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 23 May that, notwithstanding the resolution of this House of 15 March, it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on the Draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills that it should report on the draft Bills by 23 June.—(Mr Goodwill.)

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Information Systems

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14436/10 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft directive on attacks against information systems, repealing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA; and supports the Government’s aim of working with other Member States to tackle the threat from cyber crime.— (Mr Goodwill.)
	Question agreed  to .
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Space Strategy

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8693/11 and Addenda 1 to 6, relating to a Commission Communication: Towards a space strategy for the European Union that benefits its citizens; and supports the Government’s aims for the proposal, which include ensuring focus on resolving the current EU space programmes, avoiding any pre-judgement of the negotiations on the EU budget from 2014 onwards, and seeking further analysis to demonstrate clear added value in any new EU actions.—(Mr Goodwill.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Parking Restrictions (Walsall)

Valerie Vaz: This petition is from the business owners and customers of Ablewell street, Walsall. The petitioners oppose the new parking restrictions on Ablewell street. There are 787 signatories to the petition.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the business owners and customers of Ablewell Street, Walsall,
	Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the parking restrictions on Ablewell Street.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council to allow a parking amnesty of at least 30 minutes.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000923]

SCHOOL PLACES (FINCHLEY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Duddridge.)

Mike Freer: Thank you for granting permission for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must first apologise for delaying the House prior to the recess.
	Education is at the heart of the Government’s agenda, as is allowing good schools to expand. On Monday the Secretary of State for Education said in The Guardian that he was going to change the admissions code to help to meet parental demand for good schools. He said:
	“We hope the new admissions code allows the possibility of increasing planned admissions numbers so good schools can expand, and there will be underperforming schools that have fewer and fewer numbers.”
	That is spot on, but it assumes that the popular schools are able to expand. In Finchley there is no shortage of good schools at primary and secondary level. We even have schools with the space to expand; what we do not have are the capital grants to fund the expansion. The schools in Finchley are part of the family of schools in the London borough of Barnet, and Conservative-controlled Barnet is consistently one of the best local education authorities in the country. Barnet is enthusiastically pursuing many new academies and free schools.
	Before turning to the lack of capital support from the Department, I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Minister that the council has not sat by and done nothing about the shortage of places. Several years ago, it recognised that there would be an increase in demand for primary and secondary places and, in the absence of Government support, it embarked on its own £250 million primary school expansion programme. Starting in 2004, using a mixture of prudential borrowing and capital raised from asset sales, the programme set about rebuilding, expanding and refurbishing the primary estate. Barnet is forecasting that pupil numbers in the maintained secondary sector will continue to grow, and that they will grow by 22% by 2015-16. That is the second highest growth rate in the UK. The situation is not helped by the Greenwich decision. LEAs are unable to put their own pupils first.
	The factors combine to create a demographic shift that Barnet council cannot cope with—certainly not without help. Hitherto, enough help has not been forthcoming. This outstanding LEA has not been rewarded for its education record. Having delivered new schools on time and on budget, however, the authority was invited to join the last phase of Building Schools for the Future. I hold no affection for the BSF programme, as I saw Barnet council being forced into a process it did not need and could not afford, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds. The promised £83 million under BSF would have allowed three schools to expand and be refurbished—and two of those schools are in Finchley. The schools lost out when BSF was cancelled, so good schools and a good local education authority were penalised again.
	I am sure that the capital division of the Department will argue that Barnet has received capital that it should use for expansion. I know that, because it wrote to me
	in forceful terms to tell me, but Barnet has received an average of just £14.6 million over the past few years for non-academy, non-children’s centre spend. That is money earmarked for new boilers, new toilets, roof repairs, rewiring and so forth—simple basic maintenance. With more than 120 schools in Barnet, that is just £122,000 per school. To put that into perspective, the cost of rewiring one secondary school alone was £1.9 million. The allocation does not go far. It is true that the council could have diverted that capital for school expansion, but is the capital team really expecting a first-class local education authority to tell parents that their school’s broken boiler or leaking roof cannot be fixed because the money has been spent on expanding another school in a different part of the borough?
	The council cannot simply borrow the money. I would like to stress that borrowing approval, supported or otherwise, is no help at all. Barnet council has been on the funding floor for several years and borrowing approval is useless if the debt servicing cost is unaffordable because it falls on the general fund paid for out of general council tax. The capital allocation formula appears to need a complete overhaul. The increase in demand for state places has been seen across every borough in London. It is inequitable that London accounts for 64% of pupil place shortages and yet receives just 26% of the capital allocation.

Bob Blackman: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the plight of Barnet, and indeed for the whole of London. Does he agree that we are talking not only about issues related to expanding schools, but about allowing parental choice, so that faith-based schools are an important part of the equation? We have identified the need for a Hindu secondary school located between Harrow and Barnet, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to secure support for it from the Department.

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The expansion of the Hindu faith school somewhere between Barnet and Harrow would not only meet parental preference but relieve pressure on the remaining schools in the maintained sector.
	To return to the iniquity of the shortage of places and the capital funding allocation, that discrepancy between 64% of places and just 26% of funding means that London is short-changed by more £300 million in the existing allocation.
	The current shortage of primary places has been met by providing additional classrooms in portakabins, by changing information technology rooms and libraries into classrooms, or simply by making children travel much further to an available school space. That is not a sustainable solution.
	Things are no better in the secondary sector. The area is served by the Bishop Douglass mixed Roman Catholic comprehensive school, which is over-subscribed with 383 applications for 180 places, and by the Compton mixed comprehensive school, which is also over-subscribed—and every applicant from Finchley N2 was rejected; not a single pupil could get a place there. Mr Speaker went to the Compton school—or the Finchley Manorhill school, as it was then called—but he would not get in today, as he lived too far away from it. Then there is Christ’s college, a boys-only school—again
	over-subscribed, with 424 applications for 150 places. St. Michael’s Catholic grammar school for girls has 370 applications for just 96 places. We also have Henrietta Barnett, a highly selective girls school, grossly over-subscribed with 2,000 applications for 180 places. Then we have Copthall, a girls comprehensive. It too is over-subscribed, and 100% of applicants from N2 were rejected simply because they lived too far away.
	In the past fortnight alone I have received 200 emails from worried parents. Let me report just some of what they have said. Mrs Catherine Atkinson wrote:
	“I have lived in East Finchley for 28 years. My son got into Fortismere by the skin of his teeth 8 years ago and I remember the stressful wait for the letter saying he had the place. Those not so lucky because they lived maybe 200 yards farther away from the school were offered either Bishop Douglass school or…Christ’s college.”
	That would more difficult today, because those schools too are over-subscribed and full.
	Mrs Carey wrote to me:
	“I live in Long Lane. My daughter is in year 5 and my son is in year 4. Our position is as follows: Fortismere—we’re not in catchment and are unable to afford property prices in Fortismere catchment. Wren Academy Church of England—we are not churchgoers and we are not close enough geographically either. Compton—not in catchment. Christ’s College—we would be in catchment for our son, but that is not much help for our daughter! Bishop Douglass—it is at heart very much a Catholic school”,
	and they are not churchgoers.
	“Henrietta Barnet is highly selective.”
	In Barnet, first preferences granted stand at just 62%, and once second preferences have been allocated, just 85% of parents secure their first or second preferences. That is well below the national average of 85% and 96% respectively. I appreciate that capital is scarce, and I appreciate the difficulties that the Minister is experiencing. I am not asking him to issue a cheque this evening, although I am pretty sure that we would name a school after him if he did: the “Gibb Academy” does have something of a ring to it.
	I hope the Minister will accept my view that we must seek to overhaul the capital allocation formula, reward good local education authorities, fund good schools so that they can flourish and expand, help parents to secure their preferences, and give pupils the best possible education and start in life. All that I ask this evening is that he agree to meet me, along with the chief executive and leader of the council, to discuss what targeted support he is able to provide.

Nick Gibb: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing the debate. Let me say at the outset that I will accede to one of his two requests, and that I will reveal which it is at the end of my speech.
	I know that my hon. Friend is no stranger to the issues surrounding Finchley and Golders Green, as he has served the community well in local and national Government for a number of years. The Government are well aware of the pressures faced by many local authorities in London, including Barnet, in their attempt to provide enough suitable places to meet higher demand arising from the increase in birth rates and other demographic changes. I am also familiar with the argument
	advanced by London Councils—which my hon. Friend mentioned at the beginning of his speech—about the inequitable levels of funding received by London boroughs. The figures are not in line with our data, but I have asked officials to meet councils to discuss theirs in more detail.
	The Government ascribe considerable importance to meeting the Department’s priority of ensuring that every child has a good school place. Responsibility for balancing supply and demand rests with individual local authorities. We look to members of those authorities —as the people with the best and most relevant local knowledge—to ensure that there are enough places and that local schools meet the needs of local communities. They are in the best position to know how many schools are needed, and where those schools should be located to serve local populations.
	For its part, the Department for Education supplies capital funding directly to local authorities to help them to provide school places. Through the recent spending review and this year’s Budget, the Department secured £15.9 billion of capital funding over the four-year period starting in April this year. By taking early action to stop the wasteful Building Schools for the Future programme, the Secretary of State has been able to ensure that funding is available for the most pressing needs. He has allocated £800 million to local authorities for pupil places in 2011-12, and has indicated that he expects that level of support to continue for the other years of the spending review. That is twice the previous annual level of support that was given for those needs. It has been targeted on the areas of greatest demand, based on forecasts of pupil numbers provided by each local authority, and in addition to allocating the £800 million for additional pupil places the Secretary of State has informed local authorities of their overall share of capital funding for 2011-12.
	Local authorities have been asked to prioritise spending to provide new places in areas experiencing severe demographic pressures, as well as to address the needs of the schools in the very worst condition. The London borough of Barnet and its schools have been allocated almost £17 million of capital funding for 2011-12, which includes £9.4 million for the provision of basic need places. Local authorities are also able to use money allocated to school maintenance to address basic need and vice versa. They have that flexibility. Barnet has also benefited from a substantial contribution from Government to JCOSS, or the Jewish Community secondary school, which will over time provide an additional 1,300 places in the area.
	Forecasting future pupil numbers cannot be an exact science. That is why the Department has used the school census returns of the number on roll for 2010 as the starting point for basic need funding. As well as giving actual numbers on roll, the census collects information from each local authority on forecast growth areas for the three years to 2013-14. That information was used by the Department as the basis for the basic need funding calculation for 2011-12.
	By using that informed approach, the Department has been able to target funding to where growth in demand has been forecast by the local authority. However, it must be stressed that, as a result of the actions taken, we have been able to allocate all of the basic need
	funding to the local authorities as the providers of places in their local area, and as a consequence I am afraid to say that no unallocated or additional funds are available for local authorities to call upon during 2011-12. Alas, we are therefore unable to make an exception for Finchley. I think I have now answered one of my hon. Friend’s two requests.
	We are serious about getting education funding right in the future. I agree with my hon. Friend that the current capital allocation system is overly complex and unfair, which is why the Department is taking steps to ensure that future capital expenditure delivers greater value for money for everyone involved in the education sector, and that the maximum number of children benefit. We have already made changes to the allocation system to address one of my hon. Friend’s main concerns. I recognise that some local authorities were in practice unable to use supported borrowing. That is why for all schools we have allocated capital funding in 2011-12 as capital grant. That means authorities at the floor receive real funding to address their need for school places.
	Last year, the Secretary of State commissioned Sebastian James to conduct a full and independent review of the Department’s capital programmes. That review has now been published, and the Secretary of State is currently considering its recommendations. They include the proposal that there should be a new approach to the future allocation and use of all the available capital funding. The Secretary of State hopes to respond to the recommendations shortly.
	Future capital allocations and the management of funding for 2012-13 until 2014-15 will be informed by the outcome of the capital review. However, as I have said, the Secretary of State has already indicated that local authorities can expect that the headline amounts of capital available in future years will be in line with those of 2011-12. As well as providing funding to meet basic need pressures and radically reviewing the way in which capital funding is allocated and spent in future, the Government are pressing forward with their academy and free school programmes. I am aware that my hon. Friend’s constituency contains two open academies, the Wren academy and the Compton school, both of which he mentioned. By giving those involved in education the freedoms to shape the future of our schools and by opening up the opportunity for others to enter the education sector, we believe that we are offering an education system that will meet the needs of local communities.
	I hope that the House will acknowledge that the steps the Government have taken and continue to take to ensure that future capital investment benefits those in most need represent the correct approach. By tackling the areas of greatest need first and then developing a new approach to future investment that delivers value for money, I believe that we are making the best use of limited taxpayers’ money to improve the fabric and quality of our schools. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the very difficult fiscal situation faced by the country, but I would be pleased to meet him and his colleagues from Barnet council to discuss these issues further. On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and the House a very fruitful recess?
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.